Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant correctly contends that count four of the indictment, which alleged that he violated Environmental Conservation Law § 33-1301 (8-a) and § 71-2907 (3) by knowingly engaging in the business of applying pesticides for hire at a residence without having registered with the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, only alleged a violation, since it did not allege that he applied a "restricted use" pesticide (ECL 33-0101, [19]; 33-1301 [8-a]; 71-2907 [3]; People v Kohut, 30 NY2d 183, 187). Nevertheless, his plea of guilty to a violation of Environmental Conservation Law §§ 33-1301 (8-a) and 71-2907 (3) as a misdemeanor was valid because it was bargained for and in full satisfaction of the entire indictment, which included two felony counts of engaging in a scheme to defraud, and a factual basis for the plea was not neeessary ( see People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951; People v Foster, 19 NY2d 150, 153-154; People v Fields, 203 AD2d 379, 379-380; cf. People v Johnson, 89 NY2d 905).