Opinion
June 10, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.).
The court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459; People v. Rivera, 227 A.D.2d 205, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 993).
By failing to make sufficient offers of proof, defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court improperly limited his cross-examination at the suppression hearing ( People v. Nieves, 215 A.D.2d 325, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 799). Were we to review these claims in the interest of justice, we would find that the hearing court properly precluded, as irrelevant, cross-examination of the arresting officer concerning unrelated arrests he made on the day of defendant's arrest ( see, People v. Alston, 215 A.D.2d 108, 109, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 732; People v. Gonzalez, 189 A.D.2d 701, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 971).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.