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 postarrest silence cannot be used for impeachment purposes ( see People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454, 459). 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 NY2d 673, 676, 679, cert denied 449 US 1016; People v Blacks, 221 AD2d 351; People v Spinelli, 214 AD2d 135, 139-141; People v West, 212 AD2d 651, 652; People v Harrison, 149 AD2d 434, 434-435).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.