.Y.2d 536, 544, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993] ). "[W]hile a connected plea entailing benefit to a third person can place pressure on a defendant, the ‘inclusion of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one factor for a [trial] court to weigh in making the overall determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered’ " ( id. at 545, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; seePeople v. Schrecengost , 273 A.D.2d 937, 938, 710 N.Y.S.2d 226 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938, 721 N.Y.S.2d 614, 744 N.E.2d 150 [2000] ). Here, the hearing testimony of the former attorneys for defendant and his brother belies defendant's claim that he was coerced and had insufficient time to discuss the linked plea bargain during a meeting prior to the plea proceeding, and we see no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the former attorneys over that of defendant (seePeople v. Henderson , 169 A.D.3d 1521, 1522, 93 N.Y.S.3d 785 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 977, 101 N.Y.S.3d 252, 124 N.E.3d 741 [2019] ; People v. Stephens , 6 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 775 N.Y.S.2d 684 [4th Dept. 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 663, 782 N.Y.S.2d 705, 816 N.E.2d 578 [2004], reconsideration denied 3 N.Y.3d 682, 784 N.Y.S.2d 20, 817 N.E.2d 838 [2004] ; see generallyPeople v. Santos , 244 A.D.2d 897, 897, 665 N.Y.S.2d 208 [4th Dept. 1997] ). With respect to the advice provided during the meeting, "the fact ‘[t]hat [former defense] counsel made defendant aware of his sentencing exposure cannot be a basis for finding coercion’ " ( People v. Humber , 35 A.D.3d 1209, 1209, 825 N.Y.S.2d 892 [4th Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 923, 834 N.Y.S.2d 513, 866 N.E.2d 459 [2007] ; seePeople v. Days , 150 A.D.3d 1622, 1624, 55 N.Y.S.3d 544 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ).

Here, defendant's claim that he acquiesced to the plea only so that the bargain would be available to his brother is undermined by the hearing testimony of his brother. Moreover, the hearing testimony of the former attorneys for defendant and his brother belies defendant's claim that he was coerced and had insufficient time to discuss the linked plea bargain during a meeting prior to the plea proceeding, and we see no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the former attorneys over that of defendant (seePeople v. Henderson , 169 A.D.3d 1521, 1522, 93 N.Y.S.3d 785 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 977, 101 N.Y.S.3d 252, 124 N.E.3d 741 [2019] ; People v. Stephens , 6 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 775 N.Y.S.2d 684 [4th Dept. 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 663, 782 N.Y.S.2d 705, 816 N.E.2d 578 [2004], reconsideration denied 3 N.Y.3d 682, 784 N.Y.S.2d 20, 817 N.E.2d 838 [2004] ; see generallyPeople v. Santos , 244 A.D.2d 897, 897, 665 N.Y.S.2d 208 [4th Dept. 1997] ). With respect to the advice provided during the meeting, "the fact ‘[t]hat [former defense] counsel made defendant aware of his sentencing exposure cannot be a basis for finding coercion’ " ( People v. Humber , 35 A.D.3d 1209, 1209, 825 N.Y.S.2d 892 [4th Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 923, 834 N.Y.S.2d 513, 866 N.E.2d 459 [2007] ; seePeople v. Days , 150 A.D.3d 1622, 1624, 55 N.Y.S.3d 544 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ).