Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing defendant upon his conviction for a violation of probation without requiring an updated presentence investigation report. The declaration of delinquency and reports submitted by his probation officer concerning the activities of defendant after his admission that he violated probation and prior to resentencing constituted the functional equivalent of an updated report (see, People v Sanchez, 143 A.D.2d 377, 378, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 790; cf., People v Gilyard, 161 A.D.2d 464). Further, defendant declined the opportunity afforded him at sentencing to make a statement (see, People v Greene, 209 A.D.2d 541, 542, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 909). In addition, he did not request that the presentence report prepared six months earlier be updated, and County Court was familiar with changes in defendant's status since the preparation of that report (see, People v Reaves, 216 A.D.2d 945, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 801; People v Shattuck, 214 A.D.2d 1026, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 740).
Defendant has failed to show that the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing a term of imprisonment or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a reduction of that sentence (see, People v Reaves, supra).