DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in precluding his attorney from questioning a defense witness about certain allegedly prior inconsistent statements made to and recorded by his investigator, is without merit. The statements were not made under oath and did not tend to disprove his defense (see, People v. Wright, 41 N.Y.2d 118, 121; People v. Fitzpatrick, 40 N.Y.2d 44, 50; People v. Marshall, 220 A.D.2d 692, 693). Given the lack of a proper foundation for the admission of the testimony, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's determination (see, People v. Fitzpatrick, supra, at 50-52; People v. Griffiths, 247 A.D.2d 550, 552; People v. Daniels, 213 A.D.2d 419, 420; People v. Pellot, 186 A.D.2d 158; People v. Santano, 187 A.D.2d 618, 619; People v. Andre, 185 A.D.2d 276, 277).