Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis Bolden, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1982-12-14
Citations: 58 N.Y.2d 741
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Bolden, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 741–746

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Bolden, Appellant.
Argued October 15, 1982;
decided December 14, 1982
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Martin Diennor for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Esther Furman and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
We do not reach the question of negative identification argued by defendant. On defendant's attorney's cross-examination of one of the victims, he asked whether she had ever said she did not get a good look at the perpetrator. Her unresponsive answer was that she had been shown a number of photographs at the time she made that statement. By failing to move to strike that unresponsive an swer, defendant's attorney opened the door to an explanation by the People concerning the circumstances under which she had seen the photographs (cf. People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-452).