Opinion
March 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).
Ordered that the judgments and amended judgment are affirmed.
While the defendant seeks to have this Court review his claim that the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court for his convictions under Indictment No. 755/90 and S.C.I. No. 558/90 were improper in that the court failed to adhere to a promise that the sentences would be made to run concurrently with a sentence yet to be imposed by the County Court upon his violation of probation under Indictment No. 1117/89, the defendant did not seek to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Accordingly, the defendant has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. John, 186 A.D.2d 269).
In any event, "[w]hether the sentence for a violation of probation should run concurrent or consecutive with the sentence on the underlying crime or crimes which formed the basis for the violation rests in the sound discretion of the sentencing court" (People v. Rodriguez, 181 A.D.2d 515; People v. Jackson, 106 A.D.2d 93). We discern no basis to disturb the sentencing court's determination that the sentence imposed for the violation of probation should run consecutively with the sentences imposed on the intervening crimes. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.