Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that a condition of probation, which precluded him from residing with his mother and his siblings, violated Penal Law § 65.10 and the United States Constitution. Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court was authorized to impose this condition of probation since it had a rehabilitative purpose, and was necessary to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense and to prevent the incarceration of the defendant ( see Penal Law § 65.10, [2], [5]; People v Rocco, 309 AD2d 882; People v Myatt, 248 AD2d 68). Furthermore, there was a substantial showing that the challenged condition was reasonably and necessarily related to the rehabilitative and ameliorative purposes of the statute ( see Farrell v Burke, 449 F3d 470, 497; Birzon v King, 469 F2d 1241, 1243; cf. Tremper v Ulster County Dept. of Probation, 160 F Supp 2d 352).
The defendant's constitutional claim is without merit.