It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65), endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), and assault in the third degree (§ 120.00 [1]). As defendant correctly concedes, he failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his failure to complete a sex offender evaluation in connection with the preparation of a presentence report ( see People v. Primm, 24 AD3d 1306, 1307, lv denied 6 NY3d 816; People v. Brandel, 20 AD3d 927, lv denied 5 NY3d 826; People v. Lovett, 8 AD3d 1007, 1008, lv denied 3 NY3d 677). In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the enhanced sentence ( see generally People v. Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 714; People v. Parker, 271 AD2d 63, 69-70, lv denied 95 NY2d 967). Finally, neither the term of incarceration nor the period of postrelease supervision is unduly harsh or severe.