Majority
Appeal by the defendant from
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police officer’s testimony regarding the complainant’s prior identification of the defendant was properly admitted into evidence at the trial (see, People v Hernandez, 154 AD2d 197 ).
Finally, we disagree that the trial court improperly limited the scope of the cross-examination of the complaining witness. It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the court (People v Mandel, 48 NY2d 952 , cert denied 446 US 949 ; People v Holmes, 138 AD2d 630 ). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in not allowing counsel to cross-examine the complainant about the alleged acts of an unapprehended accomplice. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 442
- People v. Hernandez 154 AD2d 197 p. 442
- People v. Mandel 48 NY2d 952 p. 442