Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered March 7, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree and three counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation with restitution in the amount of $9,478.32, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant’s sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we
The court properly precluded defendant from asking the People’s witnesses about the details of the explanation that he or one of his representatives gave, at a meeting with tax officials, for taking the foreign income exclusion, and this ruling did not impair defendant’s right to present a defense. While the People elicited some evidence about the meeting, they did not elicit anything that would require admission of the proffered explanation under the rule of completeness (see People v Dlugash, 41 NY2d 725, 736 [1977]). The proffered exculpatory statements also failed to qualify for admission under a state of mind theory (see People v Villanueva, 35 AD3d 229 [2006]). Defendant’s remaining argument is without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.