The trial court properly limited cross-examination of the arresting officer regarding an alleged inconsistency between his Grand Jury testimony and his trial testimony, as there was no showing of a material inconsistency (see, People v. Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321, 326). Whether defendant in fact opened the pocketbook in question, or discovered that the pocketbook was already open, is immaterial to the issue before the jury of whether defendant unlawfully took property from the person of another (Penal Law § 155.30).
The prosecutor's summation comments regarding credibility constituted appropriate response to the defense summation (People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912) and fair comment on the evidence (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
Defendant's right to a fair trial was not impaired by a court officer's communication to the jury regarding the form of a jury note, as the officer did not deliver any instructions to the jury concerning the mode or subject of their deliberations, but merely performed an administerial duty which did not require the presence of the court or defendant (see, People v. Bonaparte, 78 N.Y.2d 26, 30-31).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.