Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered July 13, 2005, as amended August 30, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause, since the prospective juror’s responses, viewed as a whole, did not cast doubt on his ability to reach a fair and impartial verdict (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417 [2002]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358 [2001]). The panelist unequivocally agreed that, notwithstanding his positive feelings toward the police, he would
The court properly modified its original Sandoval ruling after defendant testified that he was “not a seller.” In context, this was a global denial of drug dealing not limited to the case on trial, and it opened the door to questioning about his prior marijuana sale conviction (see People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646 [1993]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue.
The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant regarding his failure to call his girlfriend and a close friend as witnesses did not shift the burden of proof (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 143 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Defendant referred to both persons in his account of his allegedly innocent presence in the vicinity of the drug transaction, and they were in a position to provide material testimony substantiating portions of his account. Concur—Andrias, J.R, Friedman, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.