Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that statements he made to a police detective after the administration of Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) should have been suppressed because they were the product of a continuous custodial interrogation which began before he was advised of his constitutional rights. However, since the defendant failed to raise this specific argument in support of suppression at the Huntley hearing ( see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72), it is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Vasquez, 66 NY2d 968; People v Thompson, 27 AD3d 495; People v Caballero, 23 AD3d 1031; People v Santana, 235 AD2d 220; People v Brown, 195 AD2d 1055), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.