Defendant's only contention on appeal is that County Court erred in limiting the cross-examination of the police officer at the suppression hearing, thus preventing a full and fair assessment of the legality of the search. Defense counsel was attempting to solicit from the police officer information regarding his previous arrest of another person not present with defendant at the time of her arrest. Under the circumstances presented here, this testimony had nothing to do with the legality of the search and it was, therefore, irrelevant. Consequently, County Court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution's objection and limiting the scope of defense counsel's questions in this regard (see, People v McKnight, 144 A.D.2d 702, 703, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 924; People v Washpun, 134 A.D.2d 858, 859, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1012). To the extent that defense counsel was attempting to use the testimony to impeach the police officer's credibility, it was properly excluded (see, People v Longwood, 116 A.D.2d 590, 592).
Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.