Opinion
February 26, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.).
The trial court accorded defendant sufficient latitude for inquiry into possible drug use by a prosecution witness ( see, People v. Melcherts, 225 A.D.2d 357, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 881).
The trial court properly admitted testimony that appellant had stated, before the robbery occurred, that he planned to rob a Pepsi truck. This statement was neither vague nor remote, and was highly probative. Appellant's challenge to a portion of his admission made after the clime is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged portion was properly admitted as explanatory of the other portion ( cf., People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 360-361).
We find that, under the circumstances, the Family Court appropriately concluded that crediting appellant with time served spent on remand status in Supreme Court "would not serve * * * the need for protection of the community" (Family Ct Act § 353.5 [a] [i]; compare, Matter of Warren W., 216 A.D.2d 225, 227).
We have considered appellant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.