Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant voluntarily failed to reappear for the continuation of his trial and for sentencing, although he had been warned of the consequences of his failure to reappear in accordance with the standards enunciated in People v Parker ( 57 N.Y.2d 136). Thus, the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to be present, and it was appropriate to sentence him in absentia (see, People v Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436; People v Robinson, 181 A.D.2d 983; People v Licastro, 156 A.D.2d 386; People v Salazar, 151 A.D.2d 517; People v Lockwood, 137 A.D.2d 721).
The defendant's further contention that the Supreme Court erred in imposing sentence based upon an incomplete sentencing report is unpreserved for appellate review, since no objection to the report was raised at sentencing (see, People v Marin, 157 A.D.2d 804). In any event, the defendant cannot be heard to complain about the absence of a complete sentence report, inasmuch as the report specifically indicates that it was incomplete because the defendant absconded and thus could not be interviewed by the Probation Department (see, People v Marin, supra; see also, People v Tejada, 171 A.D.2d 585).
Further, we find the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Eiber, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.