DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly imposed a greater sentence than it had promised is not preserved for appellate review, as he neither objected to the sentence on that ground nor moved to vacate his plea (see People v. Pike, 276 A.D.2d 649; People v. Walters, 273 A.D.2d 418). In any event, when the defendant failed to comply with the condition of his plea agreement that he appear on the scheduled sentencing date, the court was no longer bound by the original plea agreement and had the right to impose a greater sentence (see People v. Figgins, 87 N.Y.2d 840; People v. Walters, supra). Moreover, since the defendant was aware that he faced an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the plea agreement, he has no cause to complain that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Walters, supra).
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, McGINITY, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.