Defendant's various challenges to the introduction of prior consistent statements by the complainant are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no prejudice to defendant, since he relied heavily on most of the statements in question to attack the reliability of the complainant's testimony ( see, People v. Richards, 184 A.D.2d 222, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1029), and the remaining statements were stricken with proper curative instructions, after which defendant requested no further relief.
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse syndrome to explain matters beyond the ken of the typical juror, including reactions and behavior of children as a result of sexual abuse ( People v. Grant, 241 A.D.2d 340, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 1011). Contrary to defendant's current claims, each of the subject matters of the expert testimony was properly elicited in response to issues raised by the defense ( see, People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277).
Defendant's additional claims of error are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find no basis for reversal.
Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.