PEOPLE v. BEBECK (1999)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered July 18, 1996, convicting him of arson in the third degree (six counts), attempted arson in the third degree, burglary in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Finnegan, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's challenge to the hearing court's denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress oral, written, and videotaped statements to law enforcement authorities is unpreserved for appellate review, as the contentions he advances on appeal were not raised before the hearing court (see, CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Howard, 162 A.D.2d 408, 409, 557 N.Y.S.2d 61).

 In any event, the hearing court correctly denied suppression, as the totality of the circumstances indicates that the defendant's statements were made voluntarily (see, People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 287, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327;  People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 78, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179;  People v. Sohn, 148 A.D.2d 553, 556, 539 N.Y.S.2d 29;  People v. Woods, 141 A.D.2d 588, 529 N.Y.S.2d 194).

 The evidence adduced at the hearing established that the defendant was read his Miranda rights twice, the first time before admitting orally and in writing to harassing a rabbi with numerous telephone calls, stealing a “poor box” from a yeshiva, and setting fire to five synagogues and one kosher supermarket in Rockaway, Queens;  and the second time before giving a videotaped statement.   The evidence also established that the defendant was provided with food and drink and permitted to use the bathroom during his detention.   To the extent that the police may have misled the defendant at some point during his detention, the police conduct complained of was not so fundamentally unfair as to have rendered the confessions involuntary or denied the defendant due process (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188;  People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820, 580 N.Y.S.2d 773).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.