The sentencing court failed to employ the procedures mandated byCPL 400.20 (see, People v. Wilson, 64 A.D.2d 782; People v. Oliver, 96 A.D.2d 1104, affd 63 N.Y.2d 973). Although the People served defendant with a persistent felony offender statement, there is no indication that any order as mandated by CPL 400.20(3) was ever executed or filed. Nor did the court provide notice under CPL 400.20(4). Failure to file the order and provide notice of the hearing invalidates a PFO sentence (People v. Richards, 228 A.D.2d 792,lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1024; People v. Wilson, 64 A.D.2d 782; People v. Williams, 211 A.D.2d 596, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 982; People v. Hunter, 210 A.D.2d 11, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 863).
Finally, the appearances before the sentencing court cannot be construed as the hearing contemplated by CPL 400.20(7), which mandates that at the beginning of the hearing the court "must ask [defendant ] whether he wishes to controvert any allegation made in the statement prepared by the court, and whether he wishes to present evidence on the issue of whether he is a persistent felony offender or on the question of his background and criminal conduct." No such preliminary examination was conducted. Indeed, the defendant was not given an opportunity to be heard until after the court adjudicated him a PFO and was preparing to sentence him thereon.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.