The People's reference to defendant's post-arrest silence on their redirect case did not violate defendant's constitutional right to remain silent or his right against self-incrimination (People v Basora, 75 N.Y.2d 992; People v Conyers, 49 N.Y.2d 174). Here, defense counsel opened the door to this issue by cross-examining the police officer with regard to conversations with defendant after his arrest (People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445). Further exploration of these post-arrest conversations on redirect examination of the police officer was accordingly not improper.
The court charged the jury that they were not to consider People's Exhibit 2, an ounce of cocaine, which was found in an apartment concededly not owned by defendant, and as to which the possession charge had been dismissed. Counsel's failure to lodge a further objection, or to request a mistrial, indicates that defendant was satisfied with the court's instruction, which we, in any event, find adequate (People v Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070). In reading the charge as a whole, we are also satisfied that the court properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt (see, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in the imposition of sentence.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.