Opinion
October 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court was biased because it allegedly curtailed his cross-examination of a police witness is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886). In any event, the claim is baseless. The questions that allegedly were curtailed had little or no relevance to the purpose of the hearing and the People's objections thereto were properly sustained.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the admission into evidence of a post-arrest photograph showing the defendant lying on the floor holding his leg did not deprive him of a fair trial. The photograph was properly admitted since it had some probative value and it did not portray the defendant in a prejudicial or disreputable manner (see, People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 370, cert denied 416 U.S. 905; cf., People v. Gerbino, 132 A.D.2d 566).
The defendant's contention that he was prejudiced because of the prosecutor's remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. The prosecutor did not exceed the wide latitude afforded to counsel and her comments did not call upon the jury to draw conclusions that were not fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Pilgrim, 208 A.D.2d 868). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.