Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his statements concerning the murder should have been suppressed on the ground that they were obtained as a result of an arrest made without probable cause. However, by failing to specifically present and pursue this contention before the suppression court, the defendant has failed to preserve it for appellate review (see, People v Jiminez, 146 A.D.2d 713; People v Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22; People v Martin, 135 A.D.2d 836).
Similarly, his contention that the police intentionally delayed his arraignment on pending grand larceny, criminal mischief, and arson charges under Indictment No. 917-87, so that they might question him on the separate murder investigation under Indictment No. 905-87, is also unpreserved for our review since he did not advance this contention in his omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing (see, People v Silas, 158 A.D.2d 561). In any event, his contention is without merit (see, People v Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.