Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his confessions should be suppressed because they were obtained as a result of police deception and trickery. We disagree. Although the police falsely informed the defendant, before obtaining his confessions, that an eyewitness had identified him as the perpetrator of the subject crimes, we find that this ruse was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny the defendant due process (see, People v Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458, 459; cf., People v Leonard, 59 A.D.2d 1). Similarly, we do not perceive the conduct of the law enforcement officials to have been so egregious as to render the confession involuntary (see, People v Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820; People v Henry, 132 A.D.2d 673, 675; CPL 60.45).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559, 563; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v Salvaty, 163 A.D.2d 494). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.