Opinion
October 28, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), the evidence, including that defendant and his two armed companions shot all three of the victims in the head at close range, was sufficient as a matter of law to establish defendant's intent to kill the three victims.
The court reasonably exercised its discretion in limiting defense counsel's questioning of the People's chief witness with respect to collateral matters (see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v. Rodriguez, 161 A.D.2d 255, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 864).
The photograph of the lineup identification made by the complainant did not improperly bolster the complainant's in-court identification, but rather gave the jury "`an effective tool for assessing the weight and credibility'" of complainant's testimony (People v. Viruet, 171 A.D.2d 490 [quoting People v. Tunstall, 97 A.D.2d 523, 524, mod on other grounds 63 N.Y.2d 1, 10], lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1002).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.