Opinion
June 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.).
Defendant's contention that the trial court permitted excessive questioning regarding his use of aliases is unpreserved for review (People v. Jackson, 182 A.D.2d 455), and, in any event, without merit. First, defense counsel having himself raised the issue of a second alias in connection with a Massachusetts conviction, the prosecutor was entitled to inquire about the use of that name on cross-examination (People v. Ardale, 173 A.D.2d 307, 308, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 961). Second, the prosecutor's inquiry was specifically related to the Massachusetts case as to which inquiry was permitted after a Sandoval ruling, and hence could not have been misinterpreted to imply that defendant had a more extensive criminal background.
Defendant's claim that the prosecutor failed to lay a proper foundation, pursuant to People v. Dawson ( 50 N.Y.2d 311), for inquiring into the failure of two defense witnesses to come forward is unpreserved (People v. Cruz, 171 A.D.2d 607, 608, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 921). In any event, given the substance of the witnesses' testimony, and their explanations for not volunteering their information to the police or the District Attorney, defendant was not prejudiced by the inquiry (People v. Kitt, 126 A.D.2d 669, 670).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.