The court properly granted defendant's request to proceed pro se for part of the cross-examination of the main undercover officer. The court conducted a proper inquiry in which it fully explained to defendant the dangers of self-representation and the importance of using a trained lawyer, and the record establishes that defendant, who had an extensive criminal record and claimed to have a college degree, had the experience and intelligence to understand the court's warnings and knowingly waive his right to counsel ( see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 581). Furthermore, defendant represented himself for only a portion of the trial ( see People v Cabassa, 79 NY2d 722, 730-731, cert denied sub nom. hind v New York, 506 US 1011; People v Johnson, 251 AD2d 183, lv denied 92 NY2d 950; People v Timmons, 199 AD2d 8, lv denied 83 NY2d 811).
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on the scope of cross-examination ( see People v Melcherts, 225 AD2d 357, lv denied 88 NY2d 881). Defendant received ample opportunity to explore whether the police injured him in making the arrest and to thus raise a bias issue, as well as to take advantage of the fact that the police recovered buy money from a codefendant but not from defendant. There was no violation of defendant's right to confront witnesses and present a defense ( see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690; Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679).