Opinion
July 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the statements he made to the police and the physical evidence seized from his residence should have been suppressed as the results of an unlawful arrest inside his residence (see, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573), has not been preserved for appellate review since he failed to raise it before the suppression court (see, People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 887; People v. Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 888; People v. Middleton, 180 A.D.2d 761; People v. Richardson, 175 A.D.2d 143), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
Similarly, the defendant has failed to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of his plea of guilty, since he did not move to withdraw his plea in the trial court (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Ferguson, 156 A.D.2d 581; People v Dominguez, 151 A.D.2d 497), and we decline to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.