Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly excluded testimony of Detective Barry concerning a statement purportedly made by the defendant some 30 minutes after his arrest to the effect that he had been in a local bar and that he had offered to take the police back to the bar. The trial court properly noted that the "motivating factor of making an exculpatory statement after an arrest" could lead one to believe that the defendant did not "tell the truth" and that the proffered testimony was therefore inadmissible hearsay (see, People v. Sostre, 51 N.Y.2d 958; People v. Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269). It is not the intent of the law to permit the defendant to avoid taking the stand and being subject to cross-examination by allowing his story to be presented through the hearsay testimony of another witness. Moreover, in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt, any assumed error due to the exclusion of the testimony was harmless (People v. Sease-Bey, 111 A.D.2d 195). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.