Petitioner alleges that on July 16, 2018, he was convicted in the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County. Court records indicate that on March 31, 2021, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the conviction, People v Ali, 141 N.Y.S.3d 362 (2d Dep't, 2021), and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on June 8, 2021. People v. Ali, 37 N.Y.3d 962 (2021).
Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1132 (Westchester)
It is well established that "[w]here ... the opposing party opens the door on cross-examination to matters not touched upon during the direct examination, a party has the right on redirect to explain, clarify and fully elicit [the] question only partially examined on cross-examination" ( People v Melendez , 55 NY2d 445, 451 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]; accordPeople v Watts , 176 AD3d 981, 984 [2019] ; seePeople v Patel , 169 AD3d 934, 935 [2019] ). Defense counsel opened the door to such previously precluded evidence by eliciting testimony from the complainant on cross-examination that there were "[m]any ... incidents that occurred in the past" between defendant and the complainant, and, thus, the prosecutor was entitled to elicit, on redirect examination, testimony regarding those prior incidents (seePeople v Conley , 192 AD3d 1616, 1620 [2021] ; People v Ali , 192 AD3d 1132, 1133 [2021] ; People v Nicosia , 18 AD3d 673 [2005] ). Defendant's contention that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by opening the door to the previously precluded evidence and by failing to object to its admission is likewise without merit.
It is well established that "[w]here... the opposing party opens the door on cross-examination to matters not touched upon during the direct examination, a party has the right on redirect to explain, clarify and fully elicit [the] question only partially examined on cross-examination" (People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord People v Watts, 176 A.D.3d 981, 984 [2019]; see People v Patel, 169 A.D.3d 934, 935 [2019]). Defense counsel opened the door to such previously precluded evidence by eliciting testimony from the complainant on cross-examination that there were "[m]any... incidents that occurred in the past" between defendant and the complainant, and, thus, the prosecutor was entitled to elicit, on redirect examination, testimony regarding those prior incidents (see People v Conley, 192 A.D.3d 1616, 1620 [2021]; People v Ali, 192 A.D.3d 1132, 1133 [2021]; People v Nicosia, 18 A.D.3d 673 [2005]). Defendant's contention that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by opening the door to the previously precluded evidence and by failing to object to its admission is likewise without merit.