Opinion
February 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the trial court that it would have been improper to allow defense counsel to impeach a witness's trial testimony by showing that she omitted to state a fact in her testimony before the Grand Jury. Before the prior statement of this type can be used to impeach a witness's trial testimony, it must be shown that "at [a] prior time the witness' attention was called to the matter and that he was specifically asked about the facts embraced in the question propounded at trial" (People v Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 88, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 U.S. 905). Since defense counsel failed to show that the Assistant District Attorney at the Grand Jury specifically asked the witness about the facts embraced in the question propounded at trial, the defendant failed to lay a proper foundation. On this basis, the statement was properly excluded (see, People v Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.