Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends, among other things, that he is entitled to reversal of his conviction because the prosecutor, while cross-examining the defendant, asked the defendant if he had discussed the defense of justification with his counsel. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review because no objection was made to this question (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, although such a question would generally be improper (see, People v Glenn, 52 N.Y.2d 880, 881), here, the defense counsel, on direct examination of the defendant, had asked the defendant if he had had an opportunity to discuss his defense with counsel. Thus, the prosecutor's question "concern[ed] matters originally brought out * * * on direct examination of the witness" (People v Zaborski, 88 A.D.2d 1074, 1075, mod on other grounds 59 N.Y.2d 863).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.