When the trial court released the deliberating jury for the weekend over defendant's objection, this was contrary to CPL 310.10 as it stood at the time of the trial. However, "cases on direct appeal are generally decided in accordance with the law as it exists at the time the appellate decision is made" (People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 573). Effective May 30, 2001, CPL 310.10(2) was amended to permit a court to declare jury deliberations to be in recess in any case, without obtaining a defendant's consent. This amendment should be applied retroactively because it is procedural, and neither creates a new crime, makes the punishment for a crime more burdensome, nor deprives defendant of a defense (see People v. Sorbello, 285 A.D.2d 88, 93, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 658; see also Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Even if we were to conclude that the court that imposed sentence on defendant's guilty plea mistakenly believed that it had no discretion to impose a concurrent sentence, there would nevertheless be no need to remand for resentencing because the court expressed no reservations about the sentence (see People v. Diaz, 304 A.D.2d 468, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 561).
Motion seeking leave to appeal to this Court and for other related relief granted.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.