Suppression of defendant's written and videotaped confessions was properly denied. There is no basis upon which to disturb the hearing court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. The hearing evidence establishes that, under the totality of circumstances (see, Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38), defendant's confessions were voluntarily made. The deceptive statements made to defendant by the police did not create any risk that defendant might falsely incriminate himself and were not so fundamentally unfair as to deny defendant due process (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Ingram, 208 A.D.2d 561, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1033). The record also establishes that the police did not promise defendant lenient treatment; their promise to tell the District Attorney's Office that defendant cooperated was not a promise of leniency (People v. Martinez, 133 A.D.2d 572, 574, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 957).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.