Judgment affirmed.
The Trial Judge was not bound to use the specific language requested by defendant's attorney and the charge read as a whole adequately apprised the jury of the governing legal principles ( People v. Dory, 59 N.Y.2d 121, 129; United States v. Miller, 460 F.2d 582, 588; People v. Zuziela, 98 A.D.2d 161, 165).
Since the jury was presented with other impeaching evidence concerning a prior shoplifting incident, the erroneous preclusion of further cross-examination concerning the fact that the victim received an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was harmless, and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( cf. People v. Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, affd 50 N.Y.2d 898).
The other contentions raised by defendant have been considered to the extent preserved and have been found to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.