Opinion
December 5, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.).
In the absence of a further record that might have been developed had an appropriate motion been made pursuant to CPL 440.10, we cannot conclude on the existing record that defendant's trial counsel was ineffective ( see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 1000). Although counsel did not move to suppress identification testimony in timely fashion, such a motion would, in all probability, have been summarily denied ( see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921).
The trial court's various rulings imposing reasonable limits upon cross-examination of the People's witnesses constituted appropriate exercises of discretion ( see, People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 U.S. 846), and did not preclude inquiry into any relevant subject matter.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
We have considered defendant's additional claims of error and find them to be unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.