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
Page 742
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).