The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion ( see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203; People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The court properly permitted elicitation of matters that were highly relevant to defendant's credibility and were not unduly prejudicial.
While the court's participation in examining witnesses was quite extensive, the court did not take on either the function or appearance of an advocate, or suggest to the jury that it had an opinion on the merits. Accordingly, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial ( see People v. Robinson, A.D.3d 770 N.Y.S.2d 618).
Defendant was not deprived of his right to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against him when the court properly exercised its discretion to preclude cross-examination on matters of questionable relevance ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679). In particular, defendant did not establish the relevance of inquiry into police procedures in observation sale cases, where in this case the police were not operating from an observation post, but instead were traveling by car when they happened upon drug activity.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.