Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
After viewing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that the evidence clearly proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620).
Further, the defendant's claim that the trial court improperly limited the scope of cross-examination of the victim is without merit. It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the court (see, People v Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952, cert denied and appeal dismissed 446 U.S. 949, reh denied 448 U.S. 908). In the instant case the court properly exercised its discretion in not permitting cross-examination regarding complainant's living with her mother and losing custody of her child, which were collateral to the issue involved (see, People v Jackson, 124 A.D.2d 823 [No. 67] [decided herewith]).
The defendant's claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during his summation were prejudicial is similarly without merit. Initially, we note that all but one of the defendant's claims in this area are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954; People v Jones, 89 A.D.2d 875). In any event, it is clear upon the record that the prosecutor's appeal to the jury was entirely reasonable and permissible since it rested on evidence which was properly before the jury and was in direct response to the defense counsel's attack on the complainant's credibility (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Lawrence, 91 A.D.2d 642; People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179; People v Gilmore, 106 A.D.2d 399). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.