Opinion
December 16, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
Criminal Term properly concluded, after a Huntley hearing, that one of the statements made by defendant to the police was not elicited by improper police conduct designed to trigger an incriminating response, but rather was spontaneously and voluntarily made. Therefore, the statement was admissible (see, People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286; People v Pearson, 106 A.D.2d 588). Contrary to defense counsel's belief, as indicated in his appellate brief, defendant's remaining statements to the police were suppressed by Criminal Term.
With respect to defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of his plea allocutions, by failing to make an application to withdraw his pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction defendant has not preserved this issue for our review (see, People v Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, the allocutions fully satisfied the requirements of People v Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9).
Furthermore, the sentences imposed were promised as part of the bargained-for pleas and are less than the maximum permissible sentences for the crimes for which defendant stands convicted. Under these circumstances and in view of defendant's criminal history, the challenged sentences are neither harsh nor excessive. Lazer, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.