Majority
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Despite the defendant’s contention to the contrary, he was not deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury as a result of the prosecutor’s interruptions during his grand jury appearance, since the prosecutor simply prevented him from testifying on a variety of topics that were not relevant to the facts of this case or the grand jury’s investigation (see People v Smith, 199 AD2d 348 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 998 [1994]; People v Valvano, 186 AD2d 769 [1992]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Smith 199 AD2d 348 p. 455
- People v. Smith 84 NY2d 998 p. 455
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 455