Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that his sentence is excessive and that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender treatment. However, because the defendant received the sentence for which he expressly bargained, which did not include youthful offender treatment, he has no basis to complain on appeal ( see People v Joseph, 50 AD3d 1159, 1160; People v Gray, 46 AD3d 703, 704; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment ( see CPL 720.20 [a]; People v James, 78 AD3d 965; People v Huffman, 47 AD3d 646).