PEOPLE v. MARTIN (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered April 19, 2004, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the trial court's rulings during voir dire violated her constitutional rights is without merit.   The trial court properly exercised its discretion in prohibiting the defense counsel from posing improper and repetitive questions to prospective jurors (see People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744, 745, 551 N.Y.S.2d 889, 551 N.E.2d 90;  People v. Boulware, 29 N.Y.2d 135, 324 N.Y.S.2d 30, 272 N.E.2d 538;  People v. Johnson, 272 A.D.2d 481, 708 N.Y.S.2d 339).

 The defendant's contention that the trial court impeded her ability to present a defense by curtailing her cross-examination of the complainant's description of the perpetrator's hair is belied by the record.   The defense counsel elicited from the complainant that the perpetrator had short hair.   Further, the objections to the cross-examination with respect to the perpetrator's hair that were sustained were objections to form rather than substance (see People v. Marino, 21 A.D.3d 430, 432, 800 N.Y.S.2d 439).   The defendant's remaining contentions regarding cross-examination are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217, 222, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460, 666 N.E.2d 1333;  People v. Lyons, 81 N.Y.2d 753, 593 N.Y.S.2d 776, 609 N.E.2d 129;  People v. Paixao, 23 A.D.3d 677, 806 N.Y.S.2d 672;  People v. Marino, supra;  People v. Mayo, 17 A.D.3d 485, 792 N.Y.S.2d 347) and, in any event, do not require reversal.

 The defendant's contention that she was deprived of a fair trial by the court's alleged denigration of the defense counsel is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Prado, 4 N.Y.3d 725, 790 N.Y.S.2d 418, 823 N.E.2d 824;  People v. Smalls, 293 A.D.2d 500, 739 N.Y.S.2d 630).   In any event, the claim is without merit.   Although the trial court may have criticized the defense counsel's conduct in front of the jury, the court's actions were justified by the defense counsel's persistent disregard for the court's evidentiary rulings (see People v. Man Xing Guo, 271 A.D.2d 700, 707 N.Y.S.2d 854;  People v. Bistonath, 216 A.D.2d 478, 479, 628 N.Y.S.2d 738;  People v. Cuba, 154 A.D.2d 703, 546 N.Y.S.2d 684).   Moreover, any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court's instructions to the jury that it had no opinion about the case, and that the jury was not to draw any inference from anything it said to the attorneys (see People v. Bembury, 14 A.D.3d 575, 787 N.Y.S.2d 661;  People v. Man Xing Guo, supra;  People v. Cuba, supra at 704, 546 N.Y.S.2d 684).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.