Judgment affirmed.
Defendant argues, inter alia, that his confession and that of his codefendant should be suppressed. We disagree for the reasons stated in the memorandum of Justice McInerney dated April 16, 1981.
Defendant also cites as reversible error the trial court's denial of his motion for a separate trial. He claims that his codefendant's confession introduced at trial implicated him in the murder and served as verification of his own confession, thereby heightening the possibility that the jury would use the confessions to find him guilty. We find no merit to that contention. Where, as here, the confession of the defendant interlocks with and supports the confession of the codefendant, a severance is not required ( People v. McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550, cert den sub nom. Spain v. New York, 396 U.S. 937; People v Santanella, 63 A.D.2d 744, cert den sub nom. Tamilio v. New York, 443 U.S. 912).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.