Opinion
November 20, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Further, contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the extremely broad scope of the defendant's cross-examination at trial (see, People v Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, mot to amend remittitur granted 36 N.Y.2d 857, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; People v Hill, 134 A.D.2d 520) as the questions in issue concerned matters which were collateral to the issues raised at trial or were otherwise improper (see, People v Paul, 143 A.D.2d 107, 108).
Finally, we find the defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.