Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the County Court did not fulfill what, as the People concede, the defendant reasonably construed as a promise regarding his sentence. Accordingly, the defendant should have been given an opportunity to withdraw his plea ( see People v. Lowman, 237 AD2d 621, 622; cf. People v. Smith, 279 AD2d 487). We decline to address the defendant's contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his arrest and subsequent questioning while in police custody violated his constitutional rights.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. We agree with the defendant that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because "[t]he record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was entered into upon the mistaken belief of the court and the parties that the Division of Parole possessed the discretion to run any undischarged sentence concurrently with the negotiated sentence imposed in this case", when, in fact, the terms are required to run consecutively (People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 543, 544; see also, People v. Lowman, 237 A.D.2d 621). Although this issue was not preserved for appellate review, we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15).