Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place when the prosecutor asked him during cross-examination why he did not tell a police officer that the victim had attacked him. As only a general objection was raised to this question at trial, the issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. Generally, a defendant's postarrest silence cannot be used for impeachment purposes (see, People v Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 459). However, if a defendant speaks to the police and omits exculpatory information which he presents for the first time at trial, the defendant may be impeached with the omission (see, People v Savage, 50 N.Y.2d 673, 679, cert denied 449 U.S. 1016; People v Spinelli, 214 A.D.2d 135; People v West, 212 A.D.2d 651; People v Harrison, 149 A.D.2d 434). Furthermore, although the defendant's statement was not admissible as evidence-in-chief because it was obtained in violation of the defendant's Miranda rights, it was properly used for impeachment purposes (see, People v Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134; People v Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321; People v Harris, 25 N.Y.2d 175, affd 401 U.S. 222).
The defendant's remaining contention that the conviction should be reversed because of certain of the prosecutor's summation remarks is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Comer, 73 N.Y.2d 955; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951) and is, in any event, without merit (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Brown, 180 A.D.2d 549). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.