DECISION ORDER
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 the prosecution witnesses. 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 U.S. 673, 679; People v. Magrigor, 281 A.D.2d 561; People v. McGriff, 201 A.D.2d 672, 673; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238). The trial court providently exercised its discretion here.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.