PEOPLE v. GRANT

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new trial.

Although the trial court is granted broad discretion in making evidentiary rulings precluding or admitting evidence addressing collateral issues ( see People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979), "[a] court's discretion . . . is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense" ( People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 385, citing People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 57, abrogated on other grounds Carmell v Texas, 529 US 513). "Proof aimed at establishing a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground" ( People v Ocampo, 28 AD3d 684, 685; see People v Hudy, 73 NY2d at 57; People v Barney, 277 AD2d 460, 461; People v McKnight, 144 AD2d 702, 703). Here, the excluded evidence — which included testimony as to statements the complainant was alleged to have made threatening to "get" the defendant — went directly to the credibility of the complainant ( see People v Ocampo, 28 AD3d at 686; People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238, 247-248). Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say the error was harmless ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241; People v Ocampo, 28 AD3d at 686). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.