Opinion
July 12, 1989
Appeal from the Ontario County, Court, Reed, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his oral and written statements were the product of an illegal arrest and should have been suppressed. Because defendant never asserted in the suppression court that these statements should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest, this issue has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v Cruz, 139 A.D.2d 581, 587).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved or lack merit.