Opinion
May 4, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record offers no support for the defendant's contention that his Sandoval motion was improperly partially denied and the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant with respect to prior criminal acts, for purposes of impeaching his credibility, did not exceed the limits properly established by the court in response to the motion (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 374-375). The defendant's guilt was established by overwhelming evidence, including the testimony of three eyewitnesses, so that any error in not redacting a portion of the videotape of the defendant's conversation with an Assistant District Attorney, in which the defendant exhibited behavior claimed by him to be prejudicial, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (cf., People v. Mitchell, 40 A.D.2d 117, 120).
The comments of the prosecutor of which the defendant complains were a proper response to defense counsel's own summation and were within the permissible rhetorical bounds of closing argument (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.