PEOPLE v. CULLEN (1997)

 County Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of defendant's cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding the relationship between the witness's brother and defendant's wife.   While proof of bias or hostility of a witness is not collateral (see, People v. Gilland, 110 A.D.2d 1078, 488 N.Y.S.2d 935), a court may, in the exercise of discretion, properly exclude such proof when it is too remote or speculative (see, People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105-106, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584, appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891, 100 S.Ct. 197, 62 L.Ed.2d 127;  People v. Stewart [Vance], 188 A.D.2d 626, 627, 591 N.Y.S.2d 483).   Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   The record also establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe.   Defendant's remaining contentions are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to exercise our power to address them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM.