Judgment affirmed.
Upon this appeal, defendant claims that no careful examination was made at the Huntley hearing to determine whether he made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights. Our review of the record convinces us that no error was committed. At the Huntley hearing, the People's witnesses testified, without contradiction, that the defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights, stated that he understood them, and wished to answer questions without an attorney present (see, People v Epps, 104 A.D.2d 1047). The hearing court's determination that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights was fully supported by the credible and consistent testimony and the defendant's own videotaped statement. We perceive no basis to overturn such determination (e.g., People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726; People v Vail, 90 A.D.2d 917).
Defendant also argues that the sentence imposed upon him was harsh and excessive. The sentencing decision is a matter committed to the sentencing court's discretion (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302) and should be respected (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). At bar, defendant offers no valid reason why the sentence imposed, which was less than the statutory maximum and within the promised range, should be reduced. Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.