PEOPLE v. PEOPLES

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court improperly imposed a greater sentence than that which it had promised at the time the plea was entered. However, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to vacate the plea (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Hladky, 158 A.D.2d 616; People v Moore, 155 A.D.2d 696). In any event, where, as here, a defendant fails to comply with the conditions of the plea, the court is not bound by its original sentencing promise and may unilaterally impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v Miller, 186 A.D.2d 826; People v Johnson, 177 A.D.2d 651; People v Moore, 176 A.D.2d 968). Nor do we find the sentence imposed to be harsh or excessive under the circumstances of this case. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.