Opinion
August 8, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the trial court's questioning of a doctor concerning the cause of the victim's death and of the sole defense witness concerning whether the witness had previously revealed the observations which were the subject of his testimony. No objection to this questioning was raised at trial and, therefore, the claim is not properly preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; see also, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v Dyer, 128 A.D.2d 719, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 711). In any event, the questioning of the doctor was repetitive and merely elicited explanations of technical matters, and the questioning of the defense witness, which adduced that the witness had promptly reported his observations, was not harmful to the defense. This questioning was not excessive and did not create an appearance of partiality (see, People v Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882; cf., People v De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523).
The defendant did, however, voice a timely objection to the trial court's questioning of the defense witness concerning the date of the relevant observation. However, in light of the limited significance of the witness's testimony and the over-whelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, "the jury was not prevented from arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits" (People v Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 946; see also, People v Jordan, 138 A.D.2d 407; People v Biondolillo, 63 A.D.2d 610, 611). Accordingly, a new trial is unwarranted.
Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive and therefore decline to disturb it (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.