Defendant Alexander's claim that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the police witnesses regarding the use of a Kel transmission device is meritless, considering that the court, after initially issuing a preclusion ruling, permitted substantial testimony concerning the undercover's use of such device in this case. (Cf., People v Watkins, 157 A.D.2d 301, 312.) It sustained only objections to counsel's questions which asked the witnesses to speculate as to the identity of the officer who received the transmission.
Nor were the defendants entitled to a missing witness charge concerning the officer who received the Kel transmissions, as they failed to demonstrate that such witness either overheard the drug sale transaction as it occurred, or that his testimony would in any way contradict that of the purchasing detective or the "ghost" on the scene (see, People v Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 989, affg 193 A.D.2d 449), and therefore that the witness' testimony would be material and noncumulative (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.