Opinion
October 23, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the trial court did not err in precluding two prospective defense witnesses from testifying. Evidence, while technically relevant, may be excluded if it is too slight, remote, or conjectural to have any legitimate influence in determining the fact in issue (see, Richardson, Evidence § 147 [Prince 10th ed]; see also, People v Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, cert denied 435 U.S. 998). Here, the prospective testimony of the defendant's mother that the defendant had sufficient support and remained home for three weeks after the crime would be far too speculative to raise any doubt that he had committed the crime. Similarly, the prospective testimony by the defendant's friend that he lived on the sixth floor of the building where the crime was perpetrated would not establish that the defendant was in the building merely to visit him and not for some other purpose. Thus, the proffered testimony was collateral since it would not have been probative of whether or not the defendant assaulted the victim (see, People v Rosario, 139 A.D.2d 680; see also, People v Aulet, 111 A.D.2d 822, 825-826). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.