Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the sentencing court properly imposed an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant's rearrest in violation of the conditional plea agreement. At sentencing, the court conducted an inquiry in which the defendant admitted that he was present when another person broke open a public telephone and that the defendant was to receive part of the proceeds of the crime. This inquiry was sufficient to satisfy the court that there was a legitimate basis for the arrest (see, People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.