Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While the prosecutor improperly questioned the defendant on cross-examination regarding his prearrest failure to contact the police with his exculpatory version of the events (see, People v Buehler, 104 A.D.2d 1045; People v Pressley, 93 A.D.2d 665, 669-670; see also, People v Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454; People v Wagman, 99 A.D.2d 519, 521), defense counsel failed to object to this line of questioning and the error is thus not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law. After an examination of the record we have determined that this error does not require reversal in the interest of justice.
Moreover, the hearing court properly admitted the second of the defendant's inculpatory statements given to law enforcement authorities on the day of his arrest following the giving of a second set of Miranda warnings, even though it had suppressed defendant's initial statement on the ground that the Miranda warnings given the defendant prior to his first statement were insufficient to insure that he had voluntarily and intelligently chosen to waive his right to remain silent (see, People v Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115; People v Rondan, 116 A.D.2d 750; People v Glover, 58 A.D.2d 814, 815).
We have examined the remainder of those contentions raised in defense counsel's brief and the defendant's supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.