Opinion
November 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's claim that he laid a proper foundation for his questioning of an investigating police officer with regard to certain prior inconsistent statements made by the complainant ( see, People v. Moore, 193 A.D.2d 627; People v. Fiedorczyk, 159 A.D.2d 585). However, the court, for the most part, properly exercised its discretion in limiting that questioning since most of the complainant's prior statements were collateral to the ultimate issues before the jury ( see, People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 U.S. 910; People v. Keene, 180 A.D.2d 651). Moreover, to the extent that the complainant's prior statement describing the defendant was not collateral, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v. Raffa, 173 A.D.2d 748, cert denied sub nom. Amato v. New York, 502 U.S. 1058; People v. Hill, 138 A.D.2d 629; People v. Chaitin, 94 A.D.2d 705, affd 61 N.Y.2d 683; cf., People v. Moore, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.