Opinion
February 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the trial court to exclude the testimony of the defendant's parole officer and sister regarding complaints he had made about drugs being sold from his house. The excluded testimony was irrelevant and not probative of the issue of the defendant's guilt or innocence (see, People v Burnell, 151 A.D.2d 926, 927; People v Pike, 131 A.D.2d 890, 891). Further, we find that the court's revised Sandoval ruling was proper and did not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Garcia, 160 A.D.2d 258, 259). Finally, in light of the defendant's prior criminal record, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.