Defendant's claim that he was entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether he violated the terms of his plea agreement is unpreserved since he never requested a hearing or moved to withdraw his plea ( see e.g. People v Delgado, 14 AD3d 449, lv denied 4 NY3d 853), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that after a sufficient inquiry, the sentencing court properly determined that defendant had violated his plea agreement. There was no factual dispute requiring a hearing ( see People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714), in view of the undisputed fact that, contrary to the plea agreement, defendant failed to appear for sentencing and was returned involuntarily on a bench warrant ( see e.g. People v Griffin, 33 AD3d 561, lv denied 8 NY3d 881). We also conclude that defendant received effective assistance in connection with his plea and sentencing under the state and federal standards ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668).
As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Penal Law § 60.35 [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]), providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed.