DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his application to review the personnel files of a police officer witness since he failed to present "some factual predicate" supporting such disclosure ( People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 550; see People v. Andino, 291 A.D.2d 242; People v. Davis, 203 A.D.2d 300; People v. Valentine, 160 A.D.2d 325; Civil Rights Law § 50-a). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly curtailed the defendant's cross-examination of that witness regarding his motive to falsify. The Supreme 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 U.S. 673, 679; People v. Sul, 234 A.D.2d 563; People v. Turner, 243 A.D.2d 742; People v. De Jesus, 189 A.D.2d 774).
Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the defendant's presentence investigation report wherein the defendant denied possessing drugs as a factor in imposing a higher sentence. It is evident from the record that the Supreme Court considered the statement indicative of the defendant's lack of remorse and unwillingness to accept responsibility for his crime ( see People v. Burk, 220 A.D.2d 891; People v. Barnes, 219 A.D.2d 527, 528).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit ( see People v. Ali, 301 A.D.2d 609; People v. Mojica, 239 A.D.2d 609; People v. Marchese, 224 A.D.2d 341).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., SCHMIDT, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.