Opinion
November 3, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, a former Commissioner of Planning and Development for the City of Yonkers, after being convicted of charges arising from, inter alia, his acceptance of bribes in connection with the awarding of municipal contracts, entered into a cooperation agreement with the New York State Organized Crime Task Force. The agreement contained a provision wherein the defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction.
"To be enforceable, a waiver must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent" ( People v. Holman, 89 N.Y.2d 876, 878). When accepting a waiver, a trial court must consider the reasonableness of the bargain, its appropriateness under the circumstances, and the effect on the integrity of the judicial process ( see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11).
The defendant's contention that he felt he was coerced into entering into the cooperation agreement because he had no choice does not make the waiver of his right to appeal involuntary. Such "situational coercion" does not make the agreement unenforceable where, as here, the record reflects that the agreement was voluntarily entered into with full comprehension on the part of the defendant, who has reaped the benefit of the bargain ( see, People v. Seaberg, supra, 74 N.Y.2d, at 8, affg 139 A.D.2d 53, 58; People v. Williams, 36 N.Y.2d 829, 830, cert denied 423 U.S. 873).
Here, the defendant chose to cooperate, thereby admitting his guilt and waiving his right to appeal, rather than risk being incarcerated for several years in a State penitentiary. In view of the defendant's cooperation, the trial court agreed that the defendant's sentence would run concurrently to a sentence he was then serving in a Federal penitentiary on an unrelated Federal conviction. Accordingly, the waiver was a reasonable and appropriate concession under the circumstances ( see, People v. Holman, supra, 89 N.Y.2d, at 878; People v. Seaberg, supra, 74 N.Y.2d, at 11).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court on remittitur.
O'Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.