Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based "upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record" (People v Machia, 96 A.D.2d 1113, 1114; CPL 410.70; People v Yutesler, 177 A.D.2d 732; People v Davis, 155 A.D.2d 610; People v Kovarik, 112 A.D.2d 170; People v Todd D., 100 A.D.2d 595). At the hearing, both the complainant and another witness testified that they saw the defendant outside the complainant's home in violation of the court's protective order issued at the time of original sentencing. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the court's determination that the defendant violated the conditions of his probation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.