Opinion
October 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.).
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in modifying its Sandoval ruling to allow cross-examination of defendant regarding two unrelated, pending gun possession and armed robbery charges, where defendant opened the door to such questioning by testifying, on direct and redirect examination, that he had never possessed a gun; that robbery was "against his will"; and that to "bother" himself with robbers was not a part of his "background" (People v. Betts, 70 N.Y.2d 289, 295). Questioning regarding the underlying facts of the charges was clearly predicated on the good-faith hope of inducing defendant to abandon his negative responses (see, People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 200). However, while questions regarding the gun possession arrest, apparently designed to meet defendant's testimony that he did not have or own a gun and test his recollection as to issues such as the arresting officer's name, arguably brought the questioning beyond usual parameters, any error was rendered harmless by the trial court's repeated and specific limiting instructions to the jury regarding that questioning, as well as the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Perez, 160 A.D.2d 637, 638, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 793).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.