Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant's claim that the arresting officer's testimony that defendant fit a radioed description was insufficient to establish the legality of police conduct is unpreserved (People v. Cintron, 232 A.D.2d 192, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 863), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that probable cause was sufficiently established through the arresting officer's testimony as to the details of the description followed by his statement that defendant matched the description (id.). The record supports the court's finding that defendant's statement was spontaneous and not the product of police questioning.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.