The court properly denied defendant's application to recall a prosecution witness to elicit the sentence received by the witness in his own pending cause, since the record demonstrates that, on cross-examination, defendant was allowed to make a broad inquiry into the circumstances of the witness's plea, and whether any condition had been attached to it related to the witness's testimony ( see, People v. Roth, 30 N.Y.2d 99). Since counsel had already challenged the witness's credibility by suggesting that the witness may have hoped that he would obtain a more favorable sentence in return for testifying, the court properly exercised its discretion to limit impeachment evidence where the testimony as to the sentence ultimately received might have been confusing, prejudicial, and marginally relevant ( see, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679). In any event, were we to find the court's ruling to be in error, such error would be harmless ( see, People v. Stridiron, 33 N.Y.2d 287).
Concur — Lerner, P.J., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.