Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Confrontation Clause (US Const 6th Amend) bars the admission at a joint trial of a nontestifying codefendant's confession which serves to incriminate the defendant (see, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123). At the trial, the codefendant Mark Davis's statement was admitted into evidence. The defendant's statement, which was identical to the codefendant Davis's statement, was also introduced into evidence. We find that the court erred by permitting the codefendant's statement to be introduced into evidence. However, since the defendant's own statement may be considered on appeal in assessing whether the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless (see, Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186; People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750; People v. Garcia, 151 A.D.2d 500), and since the defendant's statement was identical to that of the codefendant, we find the admission of Davis's statement to be harmless (see, People v. Hamlin, supra). There is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the codefendant's statement not been admitted in evidence (see, People v. Hamlin, supra).
We have examined the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.