People v. BemburyPeople v. Bembury
- Reporters:
- , ,
The defendant‘s challenge to the interference of the trial court during his cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886 [1982]). In any event, while the court, at times, took an overly-active role in questioning the defendant, its conduct did not rise “to such an extent as to deny the defendant a fair and impartial trial” (People v Jordan, 138 AD2d 407 [1988]; see People v Sevencan, 258 AD2d 485 [1999]; People v Watts, 159 AD2d 740 [1990]). Furthermore, any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court‘s instructions to the jury advising it that the court had no opinion concerning the case (see People v Man Xing Guo, 271 AD2d 700 [2000]; People v Cuba, 154 AD2d 703 [1989]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.