Opinion
January 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Herbert Adlerberg, J., Charles Tejada, J.
Once defendant had used cross-examination to make broad assertions bearing on his guilt or innocence, even though the prosecutor's questions did not call for such testimony, the People were entitled to contradict his non-collateral testimony with rebuttal evidence refuting his assertions (see, People v Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 U.S. 1047). Even if defendant had testified "to what would otherwise be [a] collateral matter involving solely credibility * * * he does not preclude his adversary from introducing independent evidence to show that the testimony thus given is false" (People v. Andujar, 61 A.D.2d 755). Where defendant's misrepresentations were not in response to the prosecutor's questions but were affirmatively made with the intent of establishing his innocence and where he wished to re-open his case and not refute the People's evidence, but, merely explain that his misstatement was the result of confusion, the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding defendant's testimony (CPL 260.30).
Defendant's failure to provide a sufficient factual record precludes appellate review of his statutory speedy trial claim (see, People v. Kramer, 181 A.D.2d 449, 449-450, citing People v Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 320).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.