PEOPLE v. PRASHAD (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered December 14, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied a fair trial when the court permitted the prosecutor to question him regarding his failure to provide police officers with certain exculpatory information at the time of arrest.   Generally, a defendant's post-arrest silence cannot be used for impeachment purposes (see People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 459, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933).   However, where, as here, 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, 676, 679, 431 N.Y.S.2d 382, 409 N.E.2d 858, cert. denied 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475;  People v. Blacks, 221 A.D.2d 351, 633 N.Y.S.2d 793;  People v. Spinelli, 214 A.D.2d 135, 139-141, 631 N.Y.S.2d 863;  People v. West, 212 A.D.2d 651, 652, 622 N.Y.S.2d 572;  People v. Harrison, 149 A.D.2d 434, 434-435, 539 N.Y.S.2d 779).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.