Opinion
January 14, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
By absconding prior to sentencing, the defendant unambiguously indicated a defiance of the processes of law sufficient to effect a forfeiture of his right to be present at sentencing (see, People v Corley, 67 N.Y.2d 105). In this regard, we note that during the plea allocution, the court expressly advised the defendant that he would be sentenced in absentia in the event that he failed to return to court. Despite the defendant's acknowledgment of the potential consequences of a failure to follow the directives of the court, he nonetheless contumaciously absented himself from the proceedings. Accordingly, we find that he was properly sentenced in absentia (see, People v Lockwood, 137 A.D.2d 721; People v Hooper, 133 A.D.2d 347; see also, People v Scott, 158 A.D.2d 725; People v Villegas, 146 A.D.2d 228).
Moreover, although the court additionally warned the defendant that he would receive a greater sentence than that initially promised if he left his residential drug treatment program, he nevertheless absconded from the program less than one week later. Under these circumstances, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.