PEOPLE v. COSTA

We reject defendant's argument that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea prior to County Court's imposition of a harsher sentence than that agreed to in the plea bargain. By fleeing to Brazil, defendant failed to honor his part of the bargain to assist the police in their drug investigations. Where, as here, a defendant fails to fulfill an explicit condition of the sentencing agreement, a sentencing court need not permit withdrawal of a guilty plea (see, People v McDaniels, 111 A.D.2d 876; see also, People v Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 701, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 892; People v Cuadrado, 161 A.D.2d 232, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 855). Further, defendant's responses to questions during his plea allocution belie his claim that he had difficulty understanding his interpreter (see, People v Curet, 176 A.D.2d 160, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1127). Finally, assuming that defendant is correct in arguing that the interpreter used during his plea allocution was not appointed in accordance with the Judiciary Law, such an irregularity does not invalidate the interpreter's actions (see, People v Rossney, 178 A.D.2d 765, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1007; Matter of County of Ontario v Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste Mgt. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 848, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 805; see also, Public Officers Law § 15).

Weiss, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.