Opinion
April 16, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
The court properly declined to expand the suppression hearing to include a claim pursuant to Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573), since defendant's motion papers, containing merely an ambiguous reference to his warrantless arrest "at" his home, did not set forth a Payton violation ( People v. Roe, 73 N.Y.2d 1004; People v. Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952).
Defendant's claim that he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial is unreviewable due to lack of an adequate record ( see, People v. Walker, 202 A.D.2d 312, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 972). Although the record indicates that the court conducted a few minutes of voir dire in defendant's absence, it further reveals that defendant entered the courtroom as the unrecorded voir dire by counsel continued. Defendant has thus not provided a record upon which we may determine whether the voir dire conducted upon his arrival suitably replicated that which was conducted in his absence ( see, People v. Roman, 88 N.Y.2d 18, 27).
Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct do not warrant reversal. The cross-examination of defense witnesses concerning the truthfulness of prosecution witnesses was permissible given the nature of the defense testimony ( see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133). We find any error in the prosecutor's summation regarding the police notes to be harmless, since there is little chance that it had any effect on the jury's decision, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( see, People v. Perez, 176 A.D.2d 165, 166, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 862).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.