Judgment affirmed.
Criminal Term properly concluded the pretrial identification procedures were not suggestive; at any rate, an independent source existed for the complainant's in-court identification. Nor is reversal warranted because testimony was elicited concerning the complainant's prior photographic identification. Rather, the record reveals that defense counsel opened the door to such testimony by bringing up the matter on cross-examination of the complainant ( see, People v McCullars, 89 A.D.2d 669; People v Bunch, 58 A.D.2d 608; cf. People v Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741). Finally, under the circumstances, we reject defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel ( see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; Strickland v Washington, 466 US ___, 104 S Ct 2052). Titone, J.P., O'Connor, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.