Opinion
February 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claim, once the complainant's identification testimony was attacked by a defense investigator who testified to only those parts of his conversation with the complainant which he recorded in his notes, the People were properly permitted to cross-examine the witness regarding the remaining parts of the conversation (see, People v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037; People v. Powell, 137 A.D.2d 730, 731; People v Richardson, 127 A.D.2d 617, 618). The cross-examination was appropriate to rebut the suggestion that the complainant was unable to observe and identify the defendant, and aided the jury in evaluating the complainant's identification testimony, as well as the investigator's possible bias and interest in selectively recording his conversation with the complainant (see, People v Huertas, 75 N.Y.2d 487, 493; People v. Messier, 191 A.D.2d 819, 821; People v. Griffin, 173 A.D.2d 216; People v. Powell, supra).
The supplemental charge on attempted robbery in the first degree adequately apprised the jurors that the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the knife used by the defendant was a dangerous instrument (see generally, People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; People v. Ramsey, 124 A.D.2d 835), and the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to repeat the charge on the People's burden of proof (see, People v. Coonan, 48 N.Y.2d 772, 774; People v. Brown, 150 A.D.2d 472, 473).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.