Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly curtailed his right of cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Lyons, 81 NY2d 753, 754; People v. Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685, cert denied 482 US 914; People v. Odiot, 242 AD2d 308; People v. McEachern, 237 AD2d 381; People v. Dunbar, 145 AD2d 501). In any event, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of the eyewitness ( see People v. Odiot, supra; People v. McEachern, supra; People v. Daniels, 225 AD2d 632; People v. Delcarpio, 221 AD2d 359, 360; People v. Taylor, 214 AD2d 757).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714; People v. Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.