Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police officer's testimony regarding the complainant's prior identification of the defendant was properly admitted into evidence at the trial (see, People v Hernandez, 154 A.D.2d 197).
Finally, we disagree that the trial court improperly limited the scope of the cross-examination of the complaining witness. It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the court (People v Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952, cert denied 446 U.S. 949; People v Holmes, 138 A.D.2d 630). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in not allowing counsel to cross-examine the complainant about the alleged acts of an unapprehended accomplice. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.