Opinion
June 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly elicited from Detective DeRosalia, over defense counsel's objection, an out-of-court statement made to the detective by a witness who did not testify at the trial (see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 452). Although defense counsel had previously elicited a portion of the statement during his cross-examination of the detective, the so-called "opening of the door" theory is not applicable where, as here, the remainder of the statement did not explain or clarify matters already put in issue by the cross-examination (see, People v. Melendez, supra, at 451-452; People v. Keeling, 141 A.D.2d 668, 669). Nevertheless, given the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt, the admission of this testimony was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Moreover, the testimony was cumulative as it was consistent with the testimony of the four eyewitnesses who testified for the prosecution.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.