Defendant's challenges to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree are similar to those raised unsuccessfully on the co-defendant's appeal ( People v. Santana, 250 A.D.2d 537), and we see no reason to reach a different result as to this defendant.
The court properly refused to submit to the jury the lesser included offense of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree since r, o reasonable view of the evidence supports the view that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater absent "selective dissection of the integrated testimony of a single witness" ( People v. Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 373).
The arresting officer's redirect testimony that some of the officers with whom he worked that day knew defendant did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. Such testimony "did not suggest to the jury that defendant had engaged in prior misconduct, or had prior contact with law enforcement." ( People v. Greeman, 235 A.D.2d 281, 282, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1035.) Moreover, the co-defendant opened the door to such testimony ( see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451), and defendant made affirmative use of it.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.