Opinion
January 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the statement he made to the police should have been suppressed because he was so intoxicated that he was incapable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. The defendant has failed to preserve that claim for appellate review (see, People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720; cf., People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011). In any event, there is no evidence that the defendant was so intoxicated that he was unable to comprehend the significance of his statement (see, People v Zito, 123 A.D.2d 799, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 835).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.