Opinion
January 31, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Callahan, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree after he was stopped by the police while driving a 1986 Honda Civic automobile, which had been reported stolen from the Civic Center Garage. At trial, defendant did not dispute that the car was stolen or that he was driving the car when stopped by the police. His defense was that he did not know that the car was stolen. The jury convicted defendant as charged.
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that his conviction should be set aside based upon the prosecutor's failure to obtain an advance ruling from the court on the admissibility of certain testimony elicited on redirect examination of a key prosecution witness which allegedly disparaged defense counsel. Defendant did not object to the testimony on that ground at the time of trial and, thus, has not preserved that issue for appellate review.
In any event, even if we were to address the issue, we would find that defendant's argument lacks merit. The extent of redirect examination is, for the most part, governed by the sound discretion of the trial court (People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451). Where, as here, the opposing party "opens the door" and brings out on cross-examination apparent inconsistencies or contradictions in a witness's statements or acts to discredit his testimony, a party has the right on redirect to rehabilitate that witness by explaining to the jury the relevant surrounding circumstances (People v. Melendez, supra). Here, defense counsel opened the door to that line of questioning and put her own credibility into question by interviewing the witness and cross-examining him about the statement that she took from him. Since that statement was inconsistent with the witness's direct testimony, the trial court properly permitted the prosecutor, on redirect examination, to explore the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement in an attempt to rehabilitate the witness.