Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel CALLE, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: February 15, 2001

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, LERNER, SAXE and BUCKLEY, JJ. Kerry Chicon, for Respondent. Bonnie C. Brennan, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered August 28, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to a term of 3 years probation and a term of intermittent imprisonment of 4 weekends, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly exercised its discretion by imposing reasonable limits upon defendant's cross-examination of the Special Commissioner's investigator as to collateral issues concerning steps taken or not taken in the investigation of this school incident (see, People v. Melcherts, 225 A.D.2d 357, 639 N.Y.S.2d 19, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 881, 645 N.Y.S.2d 456, 668 N.E.2d 427;  People v. Martinez, 214 A.D.2d 429, 625 N.Y.S.2d 190, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 738, 631 N.Y.S.2d 618, 655 N.E.2d 715).

 The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to permit defendant to play the tape recording of a Spanish-language conversation during his cross-examination of a People's witness who had prepared an English transcript of the tape.   Defendant did not establish the need to play the tape before the jury in order to cross-examine the People's translator (see, People v. Lanfronco, 176 A.D.2d 201, 574 N.Y.S.2d 323, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 828, 580 N.Y.S.2d 209, 588 N.E.2d 107).   We further note that there was no substantial question as to the audibility of the tape or the accuracy of the English transcript, which was received in evidence.