Opinion
May 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of the complainant insofar as counsel failed to establish a good faith basis for his inquiry into extraneous matters (see, La Beau v People, 34 N.Y. 223; People v Kass, 25 N.Y.2d 123; People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, remittitur amended 24 N.Y.2d 914, cert denied 396 U.S. 846). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Palemon, 131 A.D.2d 513; see also, People v McGee, 152 A.D.2d 601; People v Burns, 118 A.D.2d 864) or without merit, and we decline to address the unpreserved issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.