PEOPLE v. DINKINS

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting questioning of prospective jurors (see, People v. Boulware, 29 N.Y.2d 135, cert denied 405 U.S. 995). Since the court itself adequately covered the jurors' obligation to draw no inference from the absence of testimony by a defendant, the court properly limited further inquiry on the same subject (compare, People v. Wongshing, 245 A.D.2d 186, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 978, with People v. Porter, 226 A.D.2d 275). The court did not abuse its discretion in curtailing questioning about the details of jurors' occupational duties. Defendant's unpreserved complaint about the court's limitation of the prosecutor's voir dire is unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.