Opinion
December 22, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling provided the defendant with sufficient information to make an informed decision as to whether to testify at trial ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371).
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court erred by curtailing his cross-examination of the complainant Peter Alvarez. It is within the trial court's wide latitude and broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination of witnesses concerning collateral matters designed to impeach credibility (see, People v. Daniels, 225 A.D.2d 632). The issue of whether the complainant may have entered into a cooperation agreement with the District Attorney's office in connection with a previous conviction is unrelated to the complainant's credibility since the complainant did not testify at the present trial pursuant to any alleged agreement ( cf., Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150; People v. Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 490).
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Lerner, JJ., concur.