Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by directing that all of the sentences shall be served concurrently with one another; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his statement to the police was made as a result of improper false promises of favorable treatment and police deception and trickery is not established by the record. Before obtaining the defendant's confession, the police failed to correct his erroneous notion that, although he committed a murder in Westchester County, there was a possibility that he would be incarcerated at Rikers Island, where the victim had been a correction officer. The defendant may have thought that he was receiving favorable treatment from the police when they confirmed that he would be imprisoned in the Westchester County jail. However, this technique was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny the defendant due process (see, People v Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Ingram, 208 A.D.2d 561; People v. Butler, 201 A.D.2d 662; People v. Foster, 193 A.D.2d 692, 693; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820). Moreover, the conduct of the police in this instance did not render the defendant's confession involuntary (see, People v. Butler, supra; People v Foster, supra; People v. Hassell, supra, at 820).
The defendant contends and the People correctly concede that the sentencing court erroneously imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment. The defendant's convictions of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree are related to one inseparable event — the defendant's shooting of the victim — and are the result of a single act (see, People v. Walsh, 44 N.Y.2d 631, 635; People v. Wallace, 152 A.D.2d 713). Since the defendant's convictions arise from a single act, the sentences imposed thereon must be concurrent (see, e.g., People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208, 210; People v. Miller, 170 A.D.2d 623).
Finally, the defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.