Opinion
May 8, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, William T. Martin, J.
Defendant was charged, inter alia, with the beating of his girlfriend. Defendant argues that he was denied the right to present a defense when the court precluded him from cross-examining complainant about whether someone else had beaten her in the past. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review because defendant never took an exception at the time of trial. Even if the court were to reach the issue, it would be meritless. It is within the court's discretion to determine the nature and extent of cross-examination. (People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 U.S. 846.) The defense's questioning of the complainant on an unrelated matter which occurred on a different date was a collateral issue. Such questioning, without more, was not exculpatory (cf., People v. Hadden, 95 A.D.2d 725; People v. Torres, 51 A.D.2d 225). Furthermore, it was insufficient to indicate that the complainant had a motive to lie. (Cf., People v. Murtha, 63 A.D.2d 579.)
We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of sentence. (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Asch and Wallach, JJ.