Opinion
February 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is firmly established in this State that an impeached witness cannot be rehabilitated by prior consistent statements unless the cross-examiner has created the inference of, or directly characterized the testimony as, a recent fabrication (People v. Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269; People v. Jimenez, 102 A.D.2d 439). However, where only part of a statement is introduced on cross-examination, the other parts may be introduced on redirect examination to explain or clarify the statement (People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445; People v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036; People v Regina, 19 N.Y.2d 65). In the instant matter, the prosecutor's attempt to rehabilitate his witness through the introduction of prior consistent testimony from a pretrial hearing was merely an effort to explain and clarify a part of that same hearing testimony which had been introduced for impeachment purposes on cross-examination.
We also find that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.