Opinion
October 8, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.).
Since defendant did not contend that his Federal and State constitutional right to confrontation was violated by any curtailment of his attorney's questioning of the prosecution witnesses, that portion of his argument has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947). In any event, the record fails to support defendant's claim that the court curtailed his questioning of the complainant concerning the complainant's intoxication. We further find that the court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination of the police witnesses ( People v. Melcherts, 225 A.D.2d 357, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 881).
By failing to make timely and specific objections, defendant has failed to preserve his challenges to prosecutor's summation ( People v. Swails, 250 A.D.2d 503), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review his contention that the prosecutor engaged in improper speculation about matters outside the record and became an unsworn witness, we would find that the prosecutor's comments constituted a proper response to the summation of defense counsel ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Although the prosecutor should have avoided instructing the jury on a matter of law, any such error was harmless ( People v. Rivera, 199 A.D.2d 204, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 809).
Defendant has failed to preserve his remaining contentions and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them to be without merit.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.