Opinion
November 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 263, mot to amend remittitur granted 36 N.Y.2d 857, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; People v. Jackson, 124 A.D.2d 823). We find that the court's ruling, which limited the scope of cross-examination of the complainant, was within the exercise of its discretion.
The defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review as no objection was made to the prosecutor's remarks in summation (CPL 470.05) and no objection was made to the curative instruction given by the court which is an indication that defense counsel was satisfied that any error had been cured (see, People v. Irby, 112 A.D.2d 447). In any event, the prosecutor's comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
We also note that the sentencing court's imposition of consecutive sentences was proper inasmuch as the crimes for which the defendant stands convicted were separate and distinct acts (see, People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839; People v. King, 115 A.D.2d 563). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.