Opinion
November 23, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and to confront his accusers when the court precluded defense counsel from cross-examining the complaining witness, who had felony charges pending against him in connection with the shooting death of another individual, as to whether any promises had been made to him in exchange for his testimony in the present case. Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that there was an error, it would be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Parsons, 112 A.D.2d 250). Moreover, we would note that the record establishes that during cross-examination of the complaining witness, defense counsel was able to elicit testimony that the witness did, in fact, face homicide charges in connection with that crime.
The defendant's claim that the court improperly gave the jury an unrequested instruction that an adverse inference should not be drawn from his failure to testify is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). In any event, reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is not warranted because there is no reasonable possibility that the instruction contributed to the conviction (see, People v Bradshaw, 154 A.D.2d 690; People v Pugliese, 131 A.D.2d 789).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.