Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly curtailed his cross-examination of the complainant and that this error violated his right to present a defense. We agree. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses (see, N Y Const, art I, § 6; People v. Hargrove, 213 A.D.2d 492). Although the scope of cross-examination is subject to the discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v. Taylor, 214 A.D.2d 757), a defendant has the right to cross-examine a witness by attacking the accuracy and truthfulness of his or her testimony regarding the material facts of the case (see, Davis v Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316-317; Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 692; see also, People v. Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, 561, affd 50 N.Y.2d 898).
Here, the trial court precluded the defendant from cross-examining the complainant about the specific events of the purported crime in order to discredit his version of those events. The People concede that a number of the defendant's questions were proper, but argue that any error was harmless. We disagree. Where, as here, the complainant's testimony was crucial to the People's case, and the defendant's cross-examination of the complainant was significantly curtailed, such error cannot be considered harmless (see, Davis v. Alaska, supra; Alford v. United States, supra; People v. Carter, 86 A.D.2d 451; see also, People v Thompson, 120 A.D.2d 627; People v. Watson, 111 A.D.2d 888). Therefore, reversal of the defendant's conviction is warranted and a new trial is ordered.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, an adequate foundation was established to admit the razor blade into evidence (see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439; People v. Gonzalez, 193 A.D.2d 360; People v. Mason, 186 A.D.2d 590; People v. Morales, 161 A.D.2d 806).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.