Opinion
February 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in curtailing cross-examination concerning the arrest record of a witness for the People and that of the witness's sons ( see, People v. Miceli, 235 A.D.2d 551; People v. Taylor, 214 A.D.2d 757; People v. Almeida, 159 A.D.2d 508, 509).
Furthermore, the court did not err in denying the defendant's request for a missing witness charge with regard to the daughter of the complainant. The complainant's daughter was a minor who, at the time of the defendant's request at trial, was residing in the Bahamas and unavailable to testify on behalf of the People ( see, People v. Benjamin, 210 A.D.2d 418; People v. Mancini, 207 A.D.2d 730; People v. Ortega, 166 A.D.2d 728). Moreover, the defendant was not prejudiced by the People's failure to call her. The child's testimony would have related only to counts of the indictment which were not submitted to the jury.
The remaining contention raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief does not provide a basis for reversal.
O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.