Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not err by limiting the cross-examination of one of the police officers who testified at trial and by precluding certain proffered testimony of other police officers. Since the matters that defense counsel sought to explore were collateral and of a speculative nature, the court properly exercised its discretion by limiting and precluding the testimony with regard thereto (see, People v Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, cert denied 435 U.S. 998; People v Veras, 182 A.D.2d 729; People v O'Connor, 154 A.D.2d 626).
The defendant has, for the most part, failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor made improper statements during his summation (see, People v Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954). In any event, the remarks in question were fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105), fair response to the comments that defense counsel made during his summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396), or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the court's subsequent instructions, which served to cure any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Basora, 75 N.Y.2d 992; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.