Crew III, J.
During cross examination of defendant, the People inquired as to whether he had been known by any fictitious names. Defense counsel objected on the ground that such evidence was irrelevant. The objection was overruled. On this appeal defendant contends that such ruling constitutes reversible error. We disagree. The use by a defendant of aliases may suggest to a jury that he is a person who has found it useful or necessary to conceal his identity and that such evidence might, therefore, bear on his credibility (cf., United States v. Grayson, 166 F.2d 863, 867). Indeed, on summation the People urged the jury to consider defendant's use of fictitious names when evaluating his credibility. Under the circumstances of this case, we perceive no abuse of discretion by County Court in permitting inquiry into the use of aliases by defendant (see, People v. Davis, 168 A.D.2d 218, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 876; People v. Sharpe, 167 A.D.2d 296, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 911). To the extent that the Second Department has held otherwise (see, People v. Butler, 138 A.D.2d 615, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1024; People v. Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 616), we disagree.
Finally, we find no merit in defendant's contention that it was error for the People to read into the record a part of defendant's preliminary hearing testimony.
Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Levine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.