Opinion
October 28, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant argues that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated by the court's refusal to strike the testimony of a prosecution witness who, upon cross-examination, asserted her privilege against self-incrimination. Any motive the witness had for testifying adversely to defendant was amply presented to the jury for its consideration, and thus further questioning would have been cumulative in nature (see, People v Clickner, 95 A.D.2d 925, 926). The defense had an adequate opportunity to present its theory that the witness was biased.
Defendant further contends that the court erred in receiving certain rebuttal testimony into evidence. In the light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the court's ruling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied ___ US ___, 105 S Ct 327).
We have examined defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.