Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While the defendant seeks to have this Court review the propriety of the imposition of a sentence which was greater than that originally promised to him at the time of his plea of guilty, the issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 701, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 892; People v Ifill, 108 A.D.2d 202; CPL 470.05). In any event, in light of the defendant's default in appearance following the entry of his plea, after having been advised by the court that the consequence for such an act would be the nullification of the sentence promise, the court's increase of the defendant's sentence was permissible (see, People v. Bigus, 186 A.D.2d 812, 813; People v Moore, 176 A.D.2d 968), and the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.