Spain, J.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal. County Court postponed sentencing for an 11-month period during which defendant was required to complete an alcohol rehabilitation program and refrain from consuming alcohol. Defendant subsequently admitted to consuming alcohol during that period and, following a sentencing hearing, was sentenced to a 1 to 4-year prison term and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,158.23, representing the cost of extraditing defendant from Florida for his arraignment. Defendant appeals.
Initially, by waiving his right to appeal defendant waived his right to challenge whether the requirement that he complete an alcohol rehabilitation program and comply with other directives during the period that his sentence was deferred constituted an impermissible term of "interim probation" (see, People v. Sparrow, 222 A.D.2d 1114, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 977). Nevertheless, were we to review the argument, we would find that County Court did not place defendant on illegal "interim probation" or violate his due process rights by imposing sentence when defendant failed to comply with a condition which was specifically explained to him by the court (see, People v. Brown, 88 N.Y.2d 944; People v. Avery, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 507; People v. McNeil, 244 A.D.2d 998, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 928).
We are, however, persuaded by defendant's argument that County Court, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 507; erred in imposing restitution to cover the cost of defendant's extradition, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 507; from Florida. The cost of extradition is included among the St. Lawrence, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 507; County's normal law enforcement operating costs (see, People v. Watson, 197, 507; A.D.2d 880) and is not considered an "actual out-of-pocket loss caused [by, 197, 507; defendant's offense]" (Penal Law § 60.27). Moreover, the County is not considered to be a "victim" of defendant's crime so as to be entitled to restitution (see, Penal Law § 60.27, [4] [b]; see also, People v. La Fave, 265 A.D.2d 740, 742;People v. Storm, 177 A.D.2d 767).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as directed defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $1,158.23, and, as so modified, affirmed.