Opinion
April 19, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.).
The statement provided by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 was substantially the same as the statement testified to by the arresting police officer at trial, and any difference was not so significant as to cause defendant prejudice (see, People v Laporte, 184 A.D.2d 803, 805, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 905). To the degree that testimony by the other officer was not substantially the same, this testimony was elicited by defendant on cross-examination.
Although proof aimed at establishing a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground, a trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, properly exclude such proof where it is too remote or speculative or where the cross-examination concerning such a motive is not proceeding upon some good-faith basis (People v Stewart [Vance], 188 A.D.2d 626, 627, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 977). Here, there was no abuse of discretion, the excluded questions being speculative and lacking any factual basis.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.