Opinion
January 19, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J., Vaughn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, the aforementioned branch of the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
While we agree with the hearing court's findings concerning the existence and terms of the cooperation agreement between the defendant and an Assistant District Attorney, we conclude on this record that the defendant's misrepresentation concerning the nature of the stains on his clothing was not so material as to justify the prosecution's withdrawal from the agreement. Indeed, the evidence of the stains was of comparatively little consequence in light of the Assistant District Attorney's promise to keep the cooperation agreement in effect even after learning of much more serious admissions by the defendant which demonstrated his extensive and knowing participation in the crime (see generally, People v McConnell, 49 N.Y.2d 340; cf., United States v Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379, cert denied 451 U.S. 1018). Moreover, we find that the defendant is entitled to the enforcement of the terms of the agreement in view of his extensive cooperation with the law enforcement authorities pursuant to and in reliance upon the agreement, as such cooperation required that he repeatedly incriminate himself and be exposed to danger while aiding in the police investigation of his codefendant (see, People v Danny G., 61 N.Y.2d 169; People v McConnell, supra; Matter of Chaipis v State Liq. Auth., 44 N.Y.2d 57; People v Argentine, 67 A.D.2d 180 ). In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the defendant's remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.