Opinion
2007-55 K CR.
Decided October 30, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (William L. McGuire, Jr., J.), rendered December 4, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15), and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court deprived him of a fair trial by restricting his cross-examination of the complainant and her sister.
It is well settled that the trial court has broad discretion over the nature and extent of cross-examination ( see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241) and can limit the scope of cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues or threaten to mislead the jury ( see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679; UI People v Francisco , 44 AD3d 870 ). We find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion herein and note that "the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish" ( Delaware v Fenstener, 474 US 15, 20; see also Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US at 679; People v Burns , 6 NY3d 793 , 795).
Defendant's further contention that the trial court's sua sponte instruction to the jury blunted the force of the defense impeachment strategy is unpreserved for appellate review since defense counsel made no objection to the instruction at trial ( see CPL 470.05; People v Nunez , 13 Misc 3d 143[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52309[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2006]; People v Spaulding , 7 Misc 3d 131 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50555[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2005]). In any event, we find that said contention has no merit.
Golia, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.