We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court's limitation of defendant's attempts to impeach the eyewitness. Specifically, the court's preclusion of impeachment by means of a "prior inconsistent statement", the details of which were uncertain and susceptible to distortion, was an appropriate exercise of discretion (People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 81, cert denied 442 U.S. 910).
The court also properly exercised its discretion in preventing the defense summation from straying from the evidence (see, People v. Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321, 329). Finally, the court did not display bias merely because it repeatedly made proper rulings adverse to defendant (see, People v. Martinez, 183 A.D.2d 485).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.