Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the County Court correctly denied his motion to suppress his confession based on his claim that he was placed in custody without probable cause. This confession was obtained after the defendant voluntarily accompanied detectives to a police station. Prior to his arrival at the police station, he was given his Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436), which he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived. Although he was present in the police station for a lengthy period, we find that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime and in the defendant's position (see, People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851) would not have believed himself to be under arrest. Indeed, the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant was free to leave until the time when he first inculpated himself (see, e.g., People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356). This conclusion is borne out by the fact that during the initial period of police questioning, the defendant did ask to leave after approximately five hours and he was released. Moreover, during the second period of questioning, he never asked to leave, although he was free to do so until he inculpated himself in the commission of the charged offenses.

Moreover, the defendant's claim that his confession was involuntarily obtained is belied by the record. The fact that his noncustodial interrogation was of a long duration, without more, does not establish that his confession was involuntary (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Benitez, 128 A.D.2d 628). In this regard, it is significant that the defendant was not continuously interrogated during his lengthy presence at the police station (see, People v. Bailey, supra). He was given food, was allowed to use the restroom, and was not subjected to abuse or mistreatment (see, People v. Croney, 121 A.D.2d 558). Suppression is not warranted because the police informed him of his polygraph examination results (see, People v. Dyla, 142 A.D.2d 423, 443; People v. Madison, 135 A.D.2d 655, 657, affd 73 N.Y.2d 810) and of statements of witnesses which conflicted with his own account of the events (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, supra). Rather, it is clear that the police employed no improper threats, inducements or other unfair tactics which might have resulted in a false confession (see, People v. Zehner, 112 A.D.2d 465, 466). Inasmuch as the hearing court's determination that the confession was properly obtained is supported by the record, we discern no basis for disturbing that determination on appeal (see, People v. Hamilton, 138 A.D.2d 625).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.