Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of its discretion (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Pitts, 218 A.D.2d 715).
The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to sever his trial from that of the codefendant. It is well settled that severance motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174; People v. Correa, 188 A.D.2d 542). Severance is compelled only where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer a defendant's guilt (see, People v. Cardwell, 78 N.Y.2d 996; People v. Mahboubian, supra; People v. Correa, supra). Moreover, where, as here, proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance (see, People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, cert denied sub. nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905). In this case, the defenses asserted by each defendant were not in irreconcilable conflict with each other so as to compel severance.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.