The scope of cross-examination rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed on appeal only for plain abuse (People v. Trinidad, 177 A.D.2d 286, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 865). Here, we find no abuse, as the court properly precluded cross-examination of the complainant regarding a 1987 arrest which had been sealed (see, People v. Cook, 37 N.Y.2d 591, 596), while allowing other extensive impeachment as to complainant's drug use.
The absence of defendant from a sidebar with a venire person does not warrant reversal as that discussion resulted in excusing said venire person who claimed to know defendant from the neighborhood (People v. Perez, 196 A.D.2d 781, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 900). Nor was defendant's right to be present at all stages of jury selection violated by sidebar discussions excusing prospective jurors by peremptory challenges as defendant was present during voir dire, when challenges were recorded, when jurors were dismissed, and had consulted with counsel before peremptory challenges were made (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 473).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.