Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the prosecutor violated Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling and that his motion for a mistrial therefore should have been granted. We disagree. The cross-examination of defendant concerning the statement he gave to the police before he was convicted in 1992 did not violate the court's Sandoval ruling, and the prosecutor did not question defendant concerning the underlying facts of that conviction. In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the prosecutor violated the Sandoval ruling in that respect, defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial (see, CPL 280.10).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of a police investigator with respect to contradictory statements given to the police by a potential prosecution witness. He contends that the court should have permitted that questioning to impeach the credibility of the potential witness. Because the witness had yet to testify, and thus had not been afforded the opportunity to explain the inconsistency, the court properly precluded that evidence (see, People v. Fiedorczyk, 159 A.D.2d 585, 586, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 788). Furthermore, the scope of cross-examination of a witness concerning collateral matters designed to impeach credibility is within the broad discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Delcarpio, 221 A.D.2d 359, 360, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 920), and the court did not improvidently exercise that discretion (see, People v. Benson, 225 A.D.2d 557, 558, lv denied, 88 N.Y.2d 844; People v. Carney, 222 A.D.2d 1006, 1007, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 877).
Defendant's contention that prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and on summation warrants reversal has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 316). In any event, the isolated incidents of misconduct by the prosecutor did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Rubin, 101 A.D.2d 71, 77, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 711; see also, People v. Smith, 198 A.D.2d 187, 188, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 810).