PEOPLE v. JONES (1999)

 There is no merit to the contention that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's failure to adhere to a Ventimiglia ruling.   The trial court did not rule inadmissible that part of defendant's confession describing defendant's theft of the homicide weapon in a prior burglary.   Further, defense counsel conceded the admissibility of the confession and did not move to redact that part describing defendant's theft of the weapon.   The record does not support defendant's further contention that the prosecutor failed to provide full disclosure of the consideration offered a prosecution witness for his testimony.

 County Court's resolution of the conflicting testimony presented at the suppression hearing is supported by the record and will not be disturbed (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380;  People v. Gessner, 188 A.D.2d 1079, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1017, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1073, 601 N.Y.S.2d 592, 619 N.E.2d 670;  People v. Mitchell, 255 A.D.2d 979, 681 N.Y.S.2d 185, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1052, 685 N.Y.S.2d 430, 708 N.E.2d 187).   Finally, defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: