Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court deprived him of his right to present a defense and to confront a witness as to an alleged incident between the witness and the complainant is without merit. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the prosecution witness, who was the complainant's mother, about the alleged incident. The excluded line of questioning, by which the defendant attempted to establish that the witness had a motive to fabricate her testimony because she was afraid that the complainant would physically harm her, was too remote and speculative, lacking in factual basis ( see People v Hoover, 298 AD2d 599; People v DaCosta, 201 AD2d 402).