Ordered that the judgment imposed under Indictment No. 10634/91 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment imposed under Indictment No. 10343/89 and the amended judgment are modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by making all the sentences concurrent; as so modified, the judgment imposed under Indictment No. 10343/89 and the amended judgment are affirmed.
We find that the confidential informant who assisted the police disappeared of his own volition, without any assistance from law enforcement officials, and the People exerted diligent efforts to locate him, to no avail. The defendant failed to demonstrate that the informant's testimony would have been exculpatory or likely to cast a doubt upon the reliability of the prosecution's case. Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to dismissal of Indictment No. 10634/91 (see, People v. Jenkins, 41 N.Y.2d 307), or a missing-witness charge, since the informant was unavailable to the People (see, People v. Aguirre, 201 A.D.2d 485; People v Matthews, 185 A.D.2d 900).
The defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), without merit (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Thomas, 186 A.D.2d 602), or relate to harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
The sentences imposed upon Indictment No. 10343/89 and upon the amended judgment were excessive to the extent indicated herein. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.