Opinion
February 5, 1993
Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Purple, Jr., J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statement to the police. The record supports the suppression court's conclusion that defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Although defendant testified that he had a lot of whiskey and very little sleep before giving his statement, the evidence does not support a finding that defendant was so intoxicated or fatigued that he was incapable of intelligently waiving his rights or comprehending the meaning of his statement (see, People v Perry, 144 A.D.2d 706, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 925). Further, the fact that Officer Rose told defendant that it would be in his best interest to make a statement does not warrant suppression of the statement (see, People v Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v Jackson, 143 A.D.2d 471, 473).
Defendant's contention that the warrantless arrest at his home was illegal (see, Payton v New York, 445 U.S. 573) and that his statement therefore should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest (see, People v Harris, 77 N.Y.2d 434) was not raised either in defendant's written motion or at the suppression hearing. Consequently, the issue is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1030-1031; People v Ruggles, 159 A.D.2d 969, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 864, 77 N.Y.2d 1000) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.
Defendant was provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147) and the sentence imposed is neither harsh nor excessive.