Opinion
September 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.).
Defendant's challenges to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree are similar to those raised unsuccessfully on the co-defendant's appeal ( People v. Santana, 250 A.D.2d 537), and we see no reason to reach a different result as to this defendant.
The court properly refused to submit to the jury the lesser included offense of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree since r, o reasonable view of the evidence supports the view that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater absent "selective dissection of the integrated testimony of a single witness" ( People v. Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 373).
The arresting officer's redirect testimony that some of the officers with whom he worked that day knew defendant did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. Such testimony "did not suggest to the jury that defendant had engaged in prior misconduct, or had prior contact with law enforcement." ( People v. Greeman, 235 A.D.2d 281, 282, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1035.) Moreover, the co-defendant opened the door to such testimony ( see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451), and defendant made affirmative use of it.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.