Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court improperly imposed an enhanced sentence when he was re-arrested because he was not warned at the plea proceeding that an enhanced sentence would be imposed if he were re-arrested prior to sentencing. This issue is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant neither objected to the sentence on that ground nor moved to vacate his plea ( see, People v. Gayle, 224 A.D.2d 710; People v. Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 701; People v. Moore, 155 A.D.2d 696).
Since the defendant did not raise any issue concerning the validity of his post-plea arrest, or deny any involvement in the underlying crime, the court did not err in failing to conduct an inquiry into the matter ( see, People v. Maupin, 198 A.D.2d 236).
Bracken, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.