Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was entitled to a missing witness charge because the complainant did not testify at trial. However, the People's evidence showed that a sufficiently diligent effort had been made to locate the witness and he was no longer available to the People (see, People v. Coit, 128 A.D.2d 545; People v. McCullers, 119 A.D.2d 835).
The trial court did not err in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant's alibi witnesses regarding their failure to come forward to law enforcement officials upon learning of the charges against the defendant. The prosecutor laid a proper foundation for such questioning (see, People v Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311; People v. Davis, 172 A.D.2d 553). Moreover, the court instructed the jury that the witnesses were not obligated to come forward (see, People v. Dawson, supra).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.