A drug sale to an individual arrested with defendant was closely intertwined with the sale to the undercover officer and was clearly admissible (see, e.g., People v. Duchesne, 260 A.D.2d 214, affd 93 N.Y.2d 969). Moreover, defendant opened the door to this evidence.
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on cross-examination (see, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679). Defendant received ample latitude to impeach the officers concerning alleged time discrepancies contained in daily activity reports, and the court only precluded cross-examination concerning time periods that were too remote to have any relevance (see, People v. Alston, 215 A.D.2d 108, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 732).
The court properly denied defendant's request for an examination of an officer's personnel file since defendant failed to demonstrate any basis for such an examination beyond mere speculation as to its contents (see,People v. Valentine, 160 A.D.2d 325, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 797).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.