Opinion
June 23, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (O'Brien, J.).
Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed on the two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. As so modified, judgment affirmed.
On direct examination, the defendant testified concerning his purchase and use of drugs as part of his defense that his confrontation with the two complainants did not involve a robbery. According to the defendant, he was merely reclaiming his own money from the complainants after they failed to purchase some drugs for him. Therefore, cross-examination as to the defendant's purchases and use of drugs, which related directly to his defense, was proper under the circumstances.
Since the defendant was not convicted of any counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, the court erred when it imposed sentences for such offenses (see, People v Palmer, 104 A.D.2d 912). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.