| People v Hilton (Thomas) |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 51033(U) [64 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on February 28, 2019 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Solomon, Herrera & McCormick (Daniel J. Herrera of counsel), for appellant. Suffolk County District Attorney (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (Brian J. Hughes, J.), rendered June 30, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the third degree, and imposed sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [3]). On appeal, defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court's limitation of his counsel's cross-examination of the victim regarding two alleged prior bad acts. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in limiting this cross-examination, as counsel failed to establish a good faith basis in fact for the inquiry (see People v Murdock, 163 AD3d 590, 591 [2018]; People v Arriaga, 77 AD3d 846, 846 [2010]).
Defendant also contends that he was denied a fair trial as the result of cumulative errors made by the court and the prosecutor at trial. In this regard, however, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting cross-examination of one of the People's witnesses (see People v Best, 152 AD3d 617, 618 [2017]; People v Cato, 5 AD3d 394 [2004]) or in admitting certain photographs into evidence (see People v Smith, 163 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2018]; People v Thomas, 99 AD3d 737, 738 [2012]). Moreover, the prosecutor's challenged questions during voir dire were not prejudicial or improper (see CPL 270.15 [1] [c]; People v Fields, 115 AD3d 673 [2014]). Defendant's contention that the court failed to adequately admonish the jury pursuant to CPL 270.40 and 310.10 is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit, as the instructions that were given adequately conveyed to the jury its function, duties, and conduct (see People v May, 138 AD3d 1024 [2016]; People v Edwards, 69 AD3d 755 [2010]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.