Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the hearing court's denial of his motion to suppress his oral and videotaped confessions. The testimony of the detective to whom the oral confession was made was sufficient to meet the People's burden of establishing the voluntariness of that oral confession beyond a reasonable doubt. "When the People in the first instance establish the legality of police conduct and the defendant's waiver of his rights, as they have here, the burden of persuasion on a motion to suppress rests with the defendant (People v Love, 85 A.D.2d 799, affd 57 N.Y.2d 998) " (People v Leftwich, 134 A.D.2d 371, 372, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 957). The defendant did not sustain that burden; he presented no bona fide factual predicate which demonstrated that other officers possessed material evidence on the issue of whether the oral statements were coerced so as to require the testimony of such officers (see, People v Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973). Furthermore, there is no basis upon which to disturb the hearing court's holding that the videotaped confession was not the product of coercion (cf., People v Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.