Opinion
February 26, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court improperly imposed a greater sentence than what had been promised is not preserved for appellate review as he neither objected to the sentence on that ground nor moved to vacate his plea (see, People v. Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 701). In any event, when the defendant failed to comply with a condition of his plea agreement, to appear on the scheduled sentencing date, the court was free to impose the enhanced sentence (see, People v. Figgins, 87 N.Y.2d 840; People v Thorpe, 189 A.D.2d 903). We note that the court actually imposed a lesser sentence than it had promised in the event that the defendant violated any conditions of his plea. Under the circumstances, he cannot now be heard to complain (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816).
Contrary to his contention, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The defendant's attorney negotiated an advantageous plea agreement that substantially limited the defendant's exposure to imprisonment (see, People v. Ladelokun, 192 A.D.2d 723; People v Chestnut, 188 A.D.2d 480).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.