Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is firmly established in this State that an impeached witness cannot be rehabilitated by prior consistent statements unless the cross-examiner has created the inference of, or directly characterized the testimony as, a recent fabrication (People v. Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269; People v. Jimenez, 102 A.D.2d 439). However, where only part of a statement is introduced on cross-examination, the other parts may be introduced on redirect examination to explain or clarify the statement (People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445; People v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036; People v Regina, 19 N.Y.2d 65). In the instant matter, the prosecutor's attempt to rehabilitate his witness through the introduction of prior consistent testimony from a pretrial hearing was merely an effort to explain and clarify a part of that same hearing testimony which had been introduced for impeachment purposes on cross-examination.
We also find that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.