Opinion
July 31, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly denied the defendant's request to introduce into evidence prior consistent statements on redirect examination of the defendant after the prosecutor impeached the defendant by using prior inconsistent statements. It is well settled that a witness's prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach his testimony at trial and that the inconsistencies may be reconciled on redirect examination by relating to the jury the relevant surrounding circumstances (see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445). However, the "mere fact that a portion of a statement is raised by the prosecutor to impeach [the] defendant on a particular issue does not entitle [the] defendant to bolster his own credibility by introducing other portions [of the statement] containing prior consistent statements on unrelated matters" (People v. Ramos, 70 N.Y.2d 639, 641).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.