Opinion
February 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the court, in its Sandoval ruling, failed to exercise its discretion in balancing the probative weight of the evidence on the issue of defendant's credibility against the risk that it might be viewed as evidence of guilt or criminal propensity, or that it might deter the defendant from testifying (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 883).
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that he was denied the right to a fair trial because of the complainant's unresponsiveness during cross-examination (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Kwok Chan, 110 A.D.2d 158, 160-161, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 920). In any event, a review of the record indicates that the complaining witness was subjected to extensive cross-examination which ensured the defendant's right to confrontation (see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22; People v. Kwok Chan, supra).
We also reject the defendant's contention that the complainant, who was the sole witness to the crime, was incredible as a matter of law. Credibility is a matter reserved for the jury and we are traditionally resistant to second-guessing its determination on this issue (People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755). Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932).
Finally, we note that to the extent that any of the prosecutrix's comments on summation were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.