Opinion
February 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel Sullivan, J.).
The court properly admitted testimony that the complainant had previously viewed a photographic array, and properly allowed the prosecution to introduce the fact that a photo array had taken place, without mentioning that defendant had been identified. We conclude that defendant opened the door to this limited testimony under the circumstances (see, People v. Collins, 214 A.D.2d 483, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Austin, 152 A.D.2d 590). In any event, any error would be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Johnson, 32 N.Y.2d 814). Any prejudice stemming from the defense witness's unprovoked comment that the complainant might have picked out defendant from a photo array was prevented by the court's immediate curative instruction.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.