Opinion
June 29, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The rule with respect to prompt outcry in cases of forcible rape is that the complaint of injury should be made promptly or at the first suitable opportunity by the injured woman and can be testified to by either the complainant or by any witness who heard her make such complaint (see, Richardson, Evidence § 292 [Prince 10th ed]; People v O'Sullivan, 104 N.Y. 481; Baccio v People, 41 N.Y. 265; People v Gomez, 112 A.D.2d 445, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 919). In the instant case, the trial court properly admitted evidence of the statement made by the complainant to her neighbor on the day following the alleged sexual assault.
Moreover, we reject the defendant's claim that the trial court unduly restricted his re-cross-examination of the complaining witness. While it is true that cross-examination is an essential component of the constitutional right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him (see, Davis v Alaska, 415 U.S. 308; People v Bethune, 105 A.D.2d 262), and while this court has held that, in a criminal case, a party may prove through cross-examination any relevant proposition, irrespective of the scope of direct examination (see, People v Kennedy, 70 A.D.2d 181), it is well settled that once the parties have proceeded to redirect and re-cross-examination, inquiry as of right is limited to new matters brought out on the preceding examination, and the scope of examination otherwise rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445; People v Bethune, supra).
We find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v Semkus, 109 A.D.2d 902, on remand 122 A.D.2d 187, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1004; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). In addition, the sentencing court properly denied the defendant's application for waiver of the mandatory surcharge (see, Penal Law § 60.35; People v Marmolejos, 125 A.D.2d 335, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 830; People v West, 124 Misc.2d 622).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.