Opinion
March 29, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The testimony presented at the pretrial hearing supported the hearing court's conclusion that the defendant, no stranger to the criminal justice system, was advised of his right to the assistance of counsel during the course of police questioning (see, People v. Hutchinson, 59 N.Y.2d 923; People v. Betancourt, 153 A.D.2d 750; People v. Sirno, 151 A.D.2d 621, affd 76 N.Y.2d 967). It is further clear that the defendant implicitly waived his right to have an attorney present by having promptly and willingly responded to the officer's questions (see, People v Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968, supra).
The mere fact that the defendant's prior convictions, which the People were permitted to inquire into pursuant to the court's Sandoval ruling, all involved violence did not compel their suppression (see, People v. Morgan, 171 A.D.2d 698; People v Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475).
The defendant's assertion that the prosecutor improperly revoked his consent to the plea bargain based upon the defendant's allocution testimony has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, a prosecutor may not be held to any aspect of a plea bargain to which he has not, in fact, given his consent (see, People v. Perez, 156 A.D.2d 7, 11; see also, People v. Antonio, 176 A.D.2d 528; Matter of Gribetz v. Edelstein, 66 A.D.2d 788).
Although the People were improperly permitted to bolster the testimony of two witnesses by the introduction of their Grand Jury testimony (see, People v. Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269, 277), under the facts of this case there is no significant probability that but for this error, the verdict would have been different (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.