Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the trial court has broad discretion in determining the extent to which a prosecutor may cross-examine a defendant with respect to prior crimes (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Pierre, 209 A.D.2d 729). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of its discretion.
"Normally, a witness may not testify concerning a previous identification of a defendant from photographs (see, People v Caserta, 19 N.Y.2d 18). However, such testimony is permitted when the defendant opens the door to this line of inquiry (see, People v. Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741)" (People v. Grate, 122 A.D.2d 853, 854). Here, during voir dire the defense counsel told the jury that the defendant was misidentified, and during cross-examination defense counsel asked one of the People's witnesses about a photograph of the defendant that was shown to two investigators. Therefore, the defendant opened the door to the testimony of the two investigators that they had previously identified the defendant in a photograph.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.