Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's claim that he was improperly cross-examined on a prior charge is without merit. The District Attorney ultimately terminated the prior charge for unspecified reasons. Such a termination does not constitute an acquittal, or a dismissal on the merits, which would bar cross-examination of the underlying acts (see, e.g., People v. Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d 118, 123; People v Vidal, 26 N.Y.2d 249, 253; cf., People v. Santiago, 15 N.Y.2d 640, 641). Moreover, the record shows that the questions were asked in good faith and had a basis in fact (see, e.g., People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 200; People v. Booker, 134 A.D.2d 949). Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.