The expert testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome was admissible to assist the jury in understanding why the victim told her boyfriend about the rape the day after it occurred but had refrained from telling her mother and the police until two weeks later as consistent with "patterns of response exhibited by rape victims" (People v Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 293), and was not admitted for purposes of bolstering the victim's testimony. The testimony also assisted the jury by explaining that the victim experienced psychological stress which was not apparent from her testimony. Thus, it supplied the jury with an explanation as to why someone who had been raped appeared to act in a manner inconsistent with the alleged incident (People v Van Loan, 179 A.D.2d 885, 886, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008). In any event, any prejudice was dissipated when the court instructed the jury, both after the expert finished testifying and in its main charge, that the testimony was not offered for the truth of the allegations (People v Story, 176 A.D.2d 1080, 1081, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 864).
We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.