Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly impeded his ability to present his defense by curtailing his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and limiting his summation. We disagree. The trial court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679; People v. Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981; People v. Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 245, cert denied 396 US 846; People v. Messa, 299 AD2d 495, 496; People v. Kinard, 215 AD2d 591; People v. Ashner, 190 AD2d 238, 246; People v. Martinez, 177 AD2d 600, 601). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in this case. Moreover, the trial court properly excluded evidence of third-party culpability that was purely speculative in nature ( see People v. Schulz, 4 NY3d 521; People v. Primo, 96 NY2d 351). The trial court also correctly limited the defense summation to matters of evidence that were properly adduced at trial ( see People v. Romano, 301 AD2d 666, 667). It properly sustained the People's objections to defense summation comments that were based on speculation and that violated the trial court's evidentiary rulings ( see People v. Bistonath, 216 AD2d 478, 479).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor's objections and the trial court's rulings violated his constitutional rights ( see People v. Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222; People v. Tucker, 21 AD3d 387, lv denied 5 NY3d 833).