Opinion
July 12, 1996
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of his right to confront witnesses against him when County Court limited defense counsel's cross-examination of a prosecution witness. The court ruled that defense counsel could not inquire into certain alleged prior bad acts concerning which the prosecution witness intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. Defendant's right of confrontation was not violated because the alleged prior bad acts were collateral to the direct evidence ( see, People v Farruggia, 77 A.D.2d 447, 452; see also, People v. Siegel, 87 N.Y.2d 536). In any event, the inability of defense counsel to cross-examine the prosecution witness concerning those prior bad acts did not impair defendant from advancing his theory of defense to the jury ( see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22; People v Green, 170 A.D.2d 1024, 1025, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 966). Defense counsel impeached the prosecution witness on cross-examination with numerous violent crimes and fully explored his motive to testify falsely against defendant.
Defendant's contention that the sentence imposed must be vacated because the court failed to follow the mandates of CPL 400.20 (3) and (4) is also without merit. Defendant received the People's CPL 400.20 notice and failed to challenge the People's allegations ( see, People v. Oliver, 96 A.D.2d 1104, 1105-1106, affd 63 N.Y.2d 973).
We reject the contention of defendant that his sentences should be vacated because presentence investigation reports were not filed on each of the four indictments as required by CPL 390.20. A presentence investigation report was ordered and filed on one indictment, and the court was not required to order separate reports for each indictment because to do so would have been cumulative ( see, People v. Hendricks [appeal No. 1], 178 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1002).
We conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v Johnson, 205 A.D.2d 707, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 868) and that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.
We have reviewed the contentions raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are lacking in merit.