Opinion
December 16, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
Defense counsel entered into a stipulation rather than risk the consequences of a negative determination on evidence considered to be detrimental to the defense. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court forced defendant into a stipulation waiving his rights to cross-examine the social worker. Defendant's case-in-chief also opened the door to possible rebuttal testimony concerning his past medical records, including the reasons why he was readmitted to the hospital (cf., People v Bagarozy, 132 A.D.2d 225, 237), and therefore, the stipulation was a reasonable choice. Defendant's claim that a proper foundation was never laid as to the social worker's qualifications as an expert is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) and meritless.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.