Opinion
January 31, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claim, the County Court correctly determined that after he invoked his right to counsel, his statements to the police were volunteered, and were not the result of interrogation or its functional equivalent (see, People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his post-arrest statements.
Furthermore, at the trial, the County Court properly limited the cross-examination of one complainant concerning whether or not the defendant prescribed the drug Restoril to the complainant's husband some two or three years prior to the crime as being too remote and conjectural (see, People v. Feldman, 299 N.Y. 153, 168-170; People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 382; People v Arthur, 186 A.D.2d 661; People v. Frejomil, 184 A.D.2d 524, 525; People v. Martinez, 177 A.D.2d 600, 601). Although the defendant's right to cross-examine is protected by the Constitution (see, US Const 6th Amend; N.Y. Const, art I, § 6), trial courts retain wide discretion to limit cross-examination "`based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness'[s] safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant'" (People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246, quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679). Whether evidence is "too remote" — i.e., whether it is proximately relevant to some fact in issue — is a question for the court (People v. Feldman, 299 N.Y. 153, 169, supra).
Finally, the County Court appropriately denied the defendant's request to charge the jury that the complainants were interested witnesses as a matter of law. Evidence of the complainants' civil lawsuits was before the jury, and the jury was charged to consider "the interest or lack of interest of any witness in the outcome of the case" which might cause the witness "who may benefit or lose, based on the outcome of the case, [to] intentionally or otherwise, color his or her testimony" (see, People v. Martin, 168 A.D.2d 221, 222; see also, People v. Gomez, 137 A.D.2d 556, 557).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025), or do not require reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Brown, 115 A.D.2d 485, 486; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.