DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve his objection to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see, CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant' s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830 ; People v. Coulter, 240 A.D.2d 756 ; People v. Bosque, 78 A.D.2d 986 ). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People satisfied their burden of proving, under the totality of the circumstances, that the defendant's will was not overborn or his capacity for self-determination critically impaired before making his oral, written, and videotaped statements to police (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 41 ; People v. Blake, 242 A.D.2d 728 ; People v. Garcia, 216 A.D.2d 319 ). The defendant's contention that the suppression hearing should have been reopened is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to ask the trial court to reopen the hearing based on the evidence at trial. In any event, that contention is without merit (see, CPL 710.40[4]; People v. Clark, 88 N.Y.2d 552, 555 ; People v. Vorvolakos, 243 A.D.2d 286 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see,Penal Law § 70.25[2]; People v. Mack, 242 A.D.2d 543 ; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).