Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.
The County Court informed the defendant that it could not, in good conscience, impose the promised sentences due to the nature and extent of the crimes committed and the defendant's criminal history. The defendant was then offered the option of accepting the sentences actually imposed or withdrawing his guilty pleas (see, People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, cert denied 419 U.S. 1122). The court gave the defendant two adjournments to consider his options and make a decision. On the sentencing date, the defendant expressly stated that he did not wish to withdraw his guilty pleas but, rather, would accept the sentences proposed by the court. The defendant does not claim that he detrimentally relied upon the original sentencing agreement (cf., People v McConnell, 49 N.Y.2d 340; People v. Danny G., 61 N.Y.2d 169). Therefore, the court's offer to vacate the guilty pleas was sufficient to restore him to the position he was in before the pleas were taken, and he is not entitled to specific performance of the original sentence promise (see, People v. Schultz, 73 N.Y.2d 757, 758).
We further find that the sentences imposed were not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.