Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
It is within the trial court's broad discretion to limit the scope of the cross-examination of witnesses concerning collateral matters designed to impeach their credibility. Where, as here, there has been no improvident exercise of this discretion, the trial court's determination should not be disturbed on appeal (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 245, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; see also, People v Griffin, 194 A.D.2d 738).
Although the defendant requested a missing-witness charge, the defendant failed to sustain his initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the uncalled witness was knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case and that the witness would naturally be expected to provide testimony favorable to the party who has not called him (see, People v Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532, 536; see also, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424). Thus, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the request.
The remarks by the prosecutor during summation were fair comment on the evidence and constituted legitimate responses to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; see also, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.