Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting his cross-examination of witnesses at both the Wade hearing and at the trial of Indictment No. 8500/96. Although the right of cross-examination is constitutionally protected, trial courts retain broad discretion to restrict cross-examination where questions are, among other things, repetitive or of marginal relevancy ( see, People v. McEachern, 237 A.D.2d 381; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246).
The defendant's sentence imposed under Indictment No. 8500/96 was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal.
S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.