Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the hearing court's determination that the photographic identifications were not unduly suggestive ( see People v Patterson, 306 AD2d 14, 14-15). Moreover, it was not improper for the prosecutor to elicit testimony on redirect examination that the witness had previously identified the defendant from a photographic array. While a witness is generally not permitted to testify to an extrajudicial identification of a photograph of the defendant ( see People v Griffin, 29 NY2d 91), such testimony is appropriate when the defendant opens the door to this type of inquiry during cross-examination of the witness ( see People v Jackson, 240 AD2d 680; People v Marrero, 117 AD2d 626). Here, the prosecutor was merely seeking to correct the misimpression, created by the defense counsel during his cross-examination, concerning the witness's ability to identify the defendant ( see People v Jackson, supra; People v Giallombardo, 128 AD2d 547, 548).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.