Opinion
November 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
As we have recently observed, "[i]t is well settled that where the defendant fails to comply with a condition of his or her plea agreement, the court is not bound by its original sentencing promise and may unilaterally impose an enhanced sentence" (People v Johnson, 177 A.D.2d 651; People v Miller, 170 A.D.2d 464; People v McNeill, 164 A.D.2d 951; People v Erazo, 155 A.D.2d 477).
Here, the court clearly and unequivocally informed the defendant during the plea proceeding that the imposition of the bargained-for sentence would be contingent upon his appearing on the scheduled sentence date and that if he failed to appear, an enhanced sentence would be imposed. Inasmuch as the defendant did not appear on the scheduled sentence date, the court permissibly imposed the enhanced sentence which it had discussed as part of the original plea agreement (see, People v Molesse, 162 A.D.2d 629; People v Gibbs, 161 A.D.2d 661; People v Miller, 170 A.D.2d 464, supra; see also, People v Cataldo, 39 N.Y.2d 578, 580).
Finally, the increased sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; People v Miller, supra, at 465). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.