It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of, inter alia, burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial because it was obtained directly or indirectly in violation of his physician-patient privilege ( see CPLR 4504 [a]). We reject that contention. "[E]ven if there was a violation of the physician-patient privilege, the suppression of the evidence found as a result is not required. The physician-patient privilege is based on statute, not the State or Federal Constitution . . . [and] a violation of a statute does not, without more, justify suppressing the evidence to which that violation leads" ( People v Greene, 9 NY3d 277, 280; see People v Drayton, 56 AD3d 1278, 1278-1279, appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 902). The further contention of defendant that the court improperly limited his cross-examination of a prosecution witness is also without merit. "It is well settled that `[t]he scope of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court'" ( People v Baker, 294 AD2d 888, 889, lv denied 98 NY2d 708). Here, the record establishes that defendant was given wide latitude in cross-examining the witness in question, and the court limited the cross-examination in merely a single instance that could not have affected the outcome of the trial.