Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., on dismissal motion; Richard D. Carruthers, J., at jury
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The fact that the jury acquitted defendant of additional charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). The credible evidence established every element of each of the crimes of which defendant was convicted.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding cross-examination of the victim regarding a complaint of physical abuse she filed against a prior boyfriend, which resulted in an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The prior complaint did not bear a significant probative relation to the instant charges and there was no factual showing that the allegations in the prior complaint were false (see People v Mandel, 48 NY2d 952, 953 [1979], cert denied 446 US 949 [1980]; People v Brown, 303 AD2d 175 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 579 [2003]). We note that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits (Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 NY2d 420 [1983]).
The motion court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The prosecutor’s appropriate cross-examination of defendant before the grand jury did not impair the integrity of the proceedings (see People v Gonzalez, 201 AD2d 414 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 871 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.
