October 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt of the crimes charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The jury's determinations of fact and credibility are supported by the record and will not be disturbed by this Court (People v. Siu Wah Tse, 91 A.D.2d 350, 352, lv denied 59 N.Y.2d 679).
The right to present a defense "does not give criminal defendants carte blanche to circumvent the rules of evidence" (United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, 30). Thus, having properly ruled that the grand jury testimony and a statement made to the prosecutor by an unproduced witness constituted inadmissible hearsay that defendant had adequate notice of the statements and that admission would deprive the prosecution of the right to cross-examine thereon, the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting good-faith cross examination of the People's witnesses regarding the exculpatory content of the unproduced witness' prior statements (see, People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 201-202).
Defendant failed to preserve his current claims of error in connection with the prosecutor's summation comments (CPL 470.05). Were we to review in the interest of justice, we would find no basis to modify the judgment.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.