Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), rendered August 1, 2006, after a jury trial, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child, and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction (Michael A. Gross, J.), rendered August l, 2006, affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his present claim that the court's evidentiary rulings deprived him of his right to confront witnesses and present a defense, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant's cross-examination of the child complainant (see People v Corby, 6 NY3d 231, 234-235 [2005]). The exclusion of those portions of the complainant's diary proffered by defendant, even if error, was harmless, in light of the minimal exculpatory value of this evidence. Defendant received sufficient latitude to assert his claims and impeach the complainant's credibility.

Any issue arising from the court's inadvertent omission in its charge of an adverse inference instruction — relating to the People's failure to produce nude photographs of the complainant allegedly taken by defendant — is unpreserved for appellate review since defendant failed to draw the court's attention to the omission after the court initially agreed to the request (see People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]; People v Santana, 212 AD2d 404, 405 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 913 [1995]). Nor did defense counsel's failure to object to the charge as given deprive defendant of effective assistance, since this oversight could not have effected the outcome of the case or compromised defendant's right to a fair trial (see People v Lopez, 28 AD3d 234 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 758 [2006]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's
remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: June 20, 2007