Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor impermissibly elicited testimony of an uncharged crime during his redirect examination of a prosecution witness is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250; People v Perez, 194 A.D.2d 812; People v Hayden, 128 A.D.2d 726). In any event, the defendant's argument is without merit. It was the defense counsel who opened the door to the prosecutor's redirect examination by first eliciting testimony relating to the uncharged crime during his cross examination of this witness (People v Howard, 193 A.D.2d 620; People v Bailey, 193 A.D.2d 689; cf., People v Respass, 213 A.D.2d 430; People v Cuesta, 199 A.D.2d 101). None of the defendant's remaining contentions warrant reversal (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242; People v Reese, 181 A.D.2d 699; People v Hightower, 163 A.D.2d 489). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.