Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that the suppression court erred in denying the motion to suppress his written statement. Defendant maintains that the statement was involuntarily made because it was obtained from him by means of threats and promises by the police (see, CPL 60.45, [2] [a], [b] [i]). The police witnesses denied making any such threats or promises. Defendant's contrary testimony merely presented a credibility question for the court to resolve. The court's resolution of that issue in favor of the People is supported by the record and should not be disturbed (see, People v Parker, 158 A.D.2d 955, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 968; People v Woods, 141 A.D.2d 588, 589, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1051; People v Vail, 90 A.D.2d 917).
Because defendant failed to controvert the allegations in the second felony offender statement at the time of sentencing, his contention that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Smith, 73 N.Y.2d 961, 962-963; People v Capers, 177 A.D.2d 992, 993, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 944; People v Davis, 135 A.D.2d 1088, 1089, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1025). Moreover, we conclude that the sentence is neither harsh nor excessive.