The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application at sentencing to withdraw his previously entered pleas of guilty based on his misunderstanding of the difference between concurrent and consecutive sentences. The sentencing court kept the promises it made at the time it accepted a plea of guilty. The record reveals the defendant's pleas were made intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily (People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9), and his responses to the questions propounded during his allocution belie the claim of difficulty in understanding his interpreter or the nature of underlying proceedings. (People v. Bermudez, 157 A.D.2d 533, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 964.)
Finally, the defendant's contention that the sentence was excessive and unduly harsh is without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas and Kupferman, JJ.