Judgments affirmed.
Defendants both claim that they were deprived of a fair trial. They rely upon the rule enunciated in Bruton v. United States ( 391 U.S. 123), which held that the admission of a codefendant's confession at a joint trial in which the codefendant does not take the stand denied defendant his constitutional right of confrontation.
It is well settled in this State that there are exceptions to the Bruton rule, particularly where each defendant has made a confession close enough in content to the one offered against him as to make the probability of prejudice so negligible that in the end the result would be the same ( People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 425). In the instant case, each defendant admitted participating in the robbery, and to some degree in striking the victim. Although each blamed the other for administering the lethal blows, the statements of both acknowledged a sufficient degree of participation so that they interlock with and support the confession of the other ( People v. Santanella, 63 A.D.2d 744, cert denied sub nom. Tamilio v. New York, 443 U.S. 912; People v Gilmer, 96 A.D.2d 679). Consequently, it was not error for the court to deny their motions for separate trials.
Defendants' remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.