DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not lose jurisdiction over the matter by reason of a delay in sentencing (see, People v. Drake, 61 N.Y.2d 359, 365; People ex rel. Harty v. Fay, 10 N.Y.2d 374; CPL 380.30). The defendant was primarily responsible for the sentencing delay and, therefore, is not allowed to benefit from it (see, People v. Marshall, 228 A.D.2d 15, 17; People v. Brown, 184 A.D.2d 647, 648). Additionally, the delay was not protracted and plausible reasons existed for it (see, Matter of Weinstein v. Haft, 60 N.Y.2d 625; People v. Nieves, 206 A.D.2d 441; cf., People v. Brewer, 237 A.D.2d 453, affd 91 N.Y.2d 999; see, People v. Hatzman, 218 A.D.2d 185).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erred in declining to obtain and consider an updated presentence report or its functional equivalent prior to the re-sentencing (see, People v. Pitter, 272 A.D.2d 416; People v. Cruz, 265 A.D.2d 488; People v. Oyebanji, 246 A.D.2d 560; People v. Figueroa, 227 A.D.2d 501).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, FEUERSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.