Opinion
August 11, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of a prosecution witness is not preserved for appellate review, since the grounds raised at trial differ from those raised on appeal ( see, People v. Qualls, 55 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Dunbar, 145 A.D.2d 501). In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of the witness since the subject which the defense counsel sought to explore was collateral, and was not even relevant under the circumstances ( see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v. Daniels, 225 A.D.2d 632; People v. Delcarpio, 221 A.D.2d 359; People v. Taylor, 214 A.D.2d 757).
The defendant's claim that the court erred in failing to give an accomplice-corroboration charge is also unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request such a charge, and failed to object to the charge as given ( see, People v Lipton, 54 N.Y.2d 340; People v. Martin, 169 A.D.2d 784). In any event, while the failure of the court to give the charge sua sponte was an error under the facts of this case ( see, People v Gonzales, 159 A.D.2d 721; People v. Strawder, 124 A.D.2d 758, 759), reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted since the testimony of other eyewitnesses to the crime independently and overwhelmingly established the defendant as the gunman ( see, People v. Ortiz, 215 A.D.2d 408; People v. Winbush, 206 A.D.2d 556; People v. Polhill, 190 A.D.2d 692; People v. Martin, supra).
The sentence was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.