DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting his cross-examination of a detective regarding a purported motive to fabricate. While proof tending to establish a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground, such proof may be excluded when it is too remote and speculative (see People v. Hoover, 298 A.D.2d 599).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to present a defense because the trial court precluded certain questions regarding the detective's investigation of the crime. The defendant had the opportunity to fully explore the detective's alleged failure to conduct a proper investigation and the few questions which were not permitted were either repetitive or improperly called for speculative answers (see People v. Devers, 296 A.D.2d 343; People v. Goodman, 280 A.D.2d 611).
Finally, the trial court properly refused to admit into evidence the criminal court complaint containing prior inconsistent statements of the detective since the defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for its admission (see People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 U.S. 910; People v. Sutton, 209 A.D.2d 456). The defendant's contention that any attempt to lay a foundation would have been futile is speculative.
ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.