DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police did not violate his right to privacy when they merely walked up his driveway and thereby observed marijuana plants growing on his property in plain view. There was no evidence that the defendant intended to exclude the public from his driveway. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized from his premises (see People v. Kozlowski, 69 N.Y.2d 761; People v. Warmuth, 187 A.D.2d 473).
The defendant received the sentence which he negotiated prior to his plea, and has no basis to complain that it is excessive (see People v. Crowell, 273 A.D.2d 321). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant differently from his codefendant (see People v. Scott, 55 A.D.2d 963).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.