Opinion
April 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.).
The evidence was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Issues concerning credibility and the evaluation of medical testimony were properly placed before the jury and we see no reason to disturb its determinations ( People v. Austin, 190 A.D.2d 508, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1010).
Defendant's complaint that he was denied his right to be present at critical stages of the trial is without merit, because all of the sidebars and robing room conferences from which defendant claims to have been excluded concerned purely legal matters about which defendant possessed no peculiar knowledge with which to advance his position or counter that of the prosecution ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 85 N.Y.2d 586; People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469).
Any error in the prosecutor's question to defendant with respect to whether he had "cooperated with" the police after his arrest was cured by the court's prompt curative instruction ( People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104; People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070).
The court provided defendant with ample latitude with which to present his defense and the court's preclusion of certain remote or collateral evidence was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, People v. DaCosta, 201 A.D.2d 402, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 871).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be both unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.