Opinion
October 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
When the defendant used one police document on cross-examination to suggest that an attempted robbery had not been contemporaneously reported, the trial court properly received, on redirect, an additional report referring to the robbery attempt. Where, as here, a defendant opens the door by using only part of certain material, the unused portion may be used to refute the inference raised by the defendant's partial use (see, People v. Desterdick, 173 A.D.2d 312, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 965).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it meritless.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.