Opinion
May 2, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J., Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses as to his agency defense and to present a defense. It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v. Hulbert, 183 A.D.2d 849). The cross-examination which was excluded was only marginally relevant to the agency defense. Furthermore, the evidence which the defendant sought to present in his defense was largely irrelevant to the agency defense, and most of this information was either already before the jury or information which would have been before the jury had the defense counsel accepted a stipulation from the prosecutor (see, People v Sullivan, 167 A.D.2d 564). Furthermore, we find the agency charge given to the jury conveyed the proper principles to the jury (see, People v. Planes, 158 A.D.2d 481).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in informing the jury that it "must" charge the agency defense because the defendant raised the issue is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise an objection to this remark (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, even though this remark constituted error (see, People v. McFadyen, 127 A.D.2d 702; People v. Holiday, 70 A.D.2d 645; People v. Turner, 48 A.D.2d 674), we find the error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. McFadyen, supra).
We find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.