Opinion
February 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.).
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in restricting defendant's re-cross-examination of one of the People's police witnesses since defendant's examination went beyond the People's inquiry on redirect ( People v. Bethune, 105 A.D.2d 262, 269, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1016; see also, Matter of Morlin R., 236 A.D.2d 201). In any event, defendant was accorded sufficient scope of inquiry concerning the subject in question and the court's restrictions on re-cross-examination caused no prejudice.
On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion raising this issue ( see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998), we conclude that defendant has failed to demonstrate "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsel's conduct ( People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709) or that but for counsel's purported errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different ( People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We conclude that any error in the court's ruling concerning evidence of a cooperation agreement involving a witness was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( see, People v. Steadman, 82 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.