PEOPLE v. PEREZ

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial when the court precluded him from eliciting certain prior consistent statements made by a defense witness, Luis Ramirez, who was a codefendant and a friend of the defendant. The defendant contends that the defense witness's testimony was attacked on cross-examination as a recent fabrication, and therefore the prior statement should have been received. Generally, the testimony of a witness may not be corroborated or bolstered by evidence of prior consistent statements made before trial (see, People v McClean, 69 N.Y.2d 426, 428). However, such statements are admissible if upon cross-examination a witness's testimony is assailed as a recent fabrication and as long as the prior consistent statements are made before the motive to fabricate arose (People v McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 210). At bar, the exception does not apply, because the codefendant's motive to favor his friend was the same when he made his prior consistent statement as it was at trial (see, People v White, 57 A.D.2d 669).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.