Opinion
December 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in precluding the testimony of a defense witness who would have explained the source of the money on the defendant's person at the time of his arrest. We disagree. It was the defense counsel who elicited testimony from the arresting officer regarding the money found on the defendant's person ( cf., People v. Scott, 104 A.D.2d 667). In any event, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the proposed testimony since the defendant was not charged with robbery and the testimony would have been collateral to the question of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979; People v. Johnson, 143 A.D.2d 847, 848).
The prosecutor's summation constituted a fair response to the defense counsel's summation and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Walker, 207 A.D.2d 811, 812).
Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.