Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.
Inasmuch as the challenged sentence was imposed following a violation of probation hearing and an adjudication that the defendant was guilty of the violation, his contention that the court should have sentenced him pursuant to the purported terms of an alleged prior plea agreement is without merit. In any event, the record fails to set forth any alleged sentence promise (see, People v Curdgel, 83 N.Y.2d 862; People v Hood, 62 N.Y.2d 863), and the defendant's factual claims regarding the proceedings are dehors the record (see, People v Otero, 201 A.D.2d 675; People v Clark, 175 A.D.2d 212).
Given the brief period between the imposition of the original sentence and the resentencing, the defendant's incarceration for much of that period, and the additional current information furnished to the court regarding any changes in the defendant's circumstances during this period, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in resentencing the defendant without a formal, updated presentence report (see, People v Kuey, 83 N.Y.2d 278; People v Schalk, 198 A.D.2d 915; People v Wilkinson, 197 A.D.2d 872; People v LaLonde, 178 A.D.2d 944; People v Sanchez, 143 A.D.2d 377; People v White, 115 A.D.2d 313).
The defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.