Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly curtailed his right of cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Ianelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685, cert denied 482 US 914; People v Lyons, 81 NY2d 753, 754). In any event, this claim is unavailing. Although the right of cross-examination is protected by the Constitution ( see, US Const 6th Amend; NY Const. art I, § 6), the trial court retains wide discretion to limit cross-examination "`based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant'" ( People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238, 246, quoting Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679).
Here, the defendant was able to elicit the inconsistency between the detective's hearing testimony and the trial testimony and place it before the jury ( cf., People v Moore, 193 AD2d 627, 628). The defendant's present argument that he was deprived of the opportunity to elicit evidence that would support his defense is speculative and without merit ( cf., People v Elder, 207 AD2d 498, 499).