Upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that defendant's guilt on the charge of attempted robbery in the second degree was sufficiently supported. Any conflicting testimony concerning the nature of the incident was for the jury to resolve (see, People v. Siu Wah Tse, 91 A.D.2d 350, lv denied 59 N.Y.2d 679) and will not be disturbed. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of one of the complaining witnesses concerning prior alleged bad acts. The court's ruling, which allowed defense counsel to inquire into the underlying facts of a burglary case without eliciting the fact that the charge was still pending, did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.