Opinion
November 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On this appeal, the defendant urges that the trial court erroneously curtailed the cross-examination of the victim. This court has recognized that where the answers sought would tend to establish the untruthfulness of a witness's testimony with respect to the specific event of the crime charged, it is error to curtail that line of questioning (see, e.g., People v Thompson, 120 A.D.2d 627, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 774; People v Batista, 113 A.D.2d 890, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 648; People v Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, affd 50 N.Y.2d 898). A reading of the record in the case at bar, however, indicates that the incidents upon which the defense sought to question the victim were not probative of the victim's motive to lie about the rape. The fact that the victim was a cocaine user, which was relevant to her general credibility, was adequately presented to the jury. The defendant's allegation that the victim stole cocaine from him did not provide a motive for her to falsely accuse him of rape, and, since the jury was well aware of her cocaine use, the curtailment of cross-examination concerning her alleged theft of cocaine did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, e.g., People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846).
The alleged prosecutorial errors made on summation are either unpreserved for review (see, e.g., People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; CPL 470.15), or, under the circumstances of this case, do not require reversal. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.