Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the evidence adduced at the pretrial suppression hearing fails to support his assertions that the incriminatory statements he provided to the police were the product of physical or psychological duress. A review of the record discloses that the defendant's claims of mistreatment are premised solely upon his own inconsistent and conclusory allegations which the hearing court rejected as lacking in credibility. Having had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses first hand, the hearing court's determination is to be accorded great weight and should be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous (see, e.g., People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Ennis, 158 A.D.2d 467, 468; People v Garren, 158 A.D.2d 614; People v Flores, 153 A.D.2d 585).
The defendant further contends that the admission into evidence of incriminatory statements made by his nontestifying codefendants requires reversal of his conviction. We disagree. Although the trial court erred in admitting the incriminatory statements of the defendant's nontestifying codefendants, the foregoing error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Cruz v New York, 481 U.S. 186; People v West, 72 N.Y.2d 941; People v Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750; People v Graham, 158 A.D.2d 714; People v Ortiz, 137 A.D.2d 727; People v McCain, 134 A.D.2d 287). Here, the defendant's detailed confession, the testimony of the numerous eyewitnesses who observed the robbery and shooting take place, and the additional proof adduced, including fingerprint and ballistics evidence, established that the admission of the codefendants' interlocking, incriminatory statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v DiNicolantonio, 74 N.Y.2d 856; People v Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750; People v Flores, supra; People v Glover, 139 A.D.2d 530; People v Papa, 143 A.D.2d 230; People v Galloway, 138 A.D.2d 735).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking merit. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.