Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
At no time did the defendant argue before the suppression court that his statement should be suppressed because his arrest was effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (see, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573). The defendant, therefore, failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v. Cornelius, 107 A.D.2d 757; People v Nieves, 102 A.D.2d 858). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.