Opinion
June 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.).
Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel opened the door during direct examination of defendant to questioning on the underlying fact of a prior conviction as to which the court had previously precluded inquiry in its Sandoval ruling (People v. Hayes, 191 A.D.2d 368).
Once defense counsel's inquiry to defendant opened the door to the prosecutor, defendant was still under a continuing obligation to tell the truth and not perjure himself (Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222; Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157). No error can be discerned from the trial court's refusal to strike the subject question and answer or to permit counsel to consult with defendant before cross-examination (see, Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272; People v. Enrique, 80 N.Y.2d 869, affg 165 A.D.2d 13 for reasons stated by Sullivan, J.).
Finally, contrary to defendant's contention, the proof of guilt adduced at trial is sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.