Opinion
October 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that his confession should be suppressed because it was obtained as a result of police deception and trickery. We disagree. Although the police falsely informed the defendant, before obtaining his confession, that the co-perpetrator had implicated the defendant in the subject crime, this ruse was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny the defendant due process of law (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Foster, 193 A.D.2d 692, 693; People v. Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458). Moreover, we do not perceive the conduct of the law enforcement officials to have been so egregious as to render the confession involuntary (see, People v Foster, supra; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559, 563; People v. Foster, supra; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.