People v. RiversPeople v. Rivers
The defendant‘s challenge to the trial court‘s interference during his cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 888 [1982]; People v Bembury, 14 AD3d 575, 576 [2005]). “In any event, while the court, at times, took an [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 Bembury, 14 AD3d at 576 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Perez, 30 AD3d 542 [2006]; People v Sevencan, 258 AD2d 485 [1999]). Any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court‘s instructions advising the jury that the trial court had no opinion concerning the case (see People v Charles-Pierre, 31 AD3d 659, 660 [2006]; People v Bembury, 14 AD3d at 576).
Further, any error in permitting the prosecutor, over objection, to exceed the scope of the trial court‘s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant‘s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v Grant, 7 NY3d 421, 424-425 [2006]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]), particularly in light of the trial court‘s curative instructions (see People v Bianchi, 34 AD3d 690 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.