Opinion
May 16, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
Defendant's impeachment of a prosecution witness was not unduly restricted. Since the witness's psychiatrist contradicted the allegations about the witness's perception that were contained in a letter from one of defendant's friends who claimed to have been a member of the witness's therapy group, the court correctly held that the letter did not provide a good faith basis for defendant's questioning the witness about her entire psychiatric history ( People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 849). Nor did the court err in precluding defendant from recalling this witness to cross-examine her regarding collateral impeachment matters such as the use of other names, which defendant had extensively reviewed on cross-examination, and different Social Security numbers ( People v. Inniss, 83 N.Y.2d 653, 658). In any event, any error in this regard was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt ( People v Jones, 207 A.D.2d 745, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 863).
The People were not obligated to correct inaccuracies in Rosario material. In any event, defendant was not prejudiced by the fact that these inaccuracies caused him to pursue a fruitless line of cross-examination.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.