Opinion
October 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant contends that the prosecutor's cross-examination suggesting his involvement in uncharged crimes was unduly prejudicial and deprived him of a fair trial. The defendant concedes that trial counsel "fail[ed] to object to the prosecutor's overall inquiry". The record supports the conclusion that the alleged error raised on appeal was not objected to at trial and, consequently, is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 948; People v Chaitin, 61 N.Y.2d 683, 684-685). In any event, the defendant clearly opened the door to the complained-of cross-examination by interjecting the uncharged crimes during his direct examination as an integral component of his trial strategy (see, Brown v United States, 356 U.S. 148, reh denied 356 U.S. 948; Halloran v Virginia Chems., 41 N.Y.2d 386, 393; People v McCullough, 141 A.D.2d 856, 858).
We further find that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Spatt, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.