Opinion
April 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.).
Defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine whether his cooperation had been sufficient, under the terms of the agreement, to require specific performance of the People's promise of leniency, was not preserved for appellate review, since defendant neither requested such a hearing nor moved to withdraw his plea of guilty ( see, People v. Messina, 131 A.D.2d 788). Were we to review this claim, we would find it to be without merit. Based on the single violation of failing to appear for a scheduled court date, the court was entitled, under the agreement, to impose an enhanced sentence ( see, People v. Yu, 204 A.D.2d 129, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 835). Moreover, a hearing to determine the extent of defendant's cooperation would have served no purpose, "there being no evidence that the information he provided was of any use" ( People v. Ortiz, 180 A.D.2d 429). The defense offered no factual support for its contention that defendant's efforts provided potentially useful investigative information ( see, People v. Anonymous, 208 A.D.2d 426, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1008; see also, People v. Anonymous, 219 A.D.2d 525, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 844). The agreement and the accompanying colloquy made defendant's obligations clear.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.