Opinion
March 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the purported appeal from the amended sentence is dismissed since the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal therefrom (see, CPL 460.10 [a]).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the sentencing court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender treatment is without merit. It is well settled that the granting of such relief lies within the sound discretion of the court (see, People v Williams, 124 A.D.2d 615, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 751; People v Selig, 110 A.D.2d 918; People v. Parris, 109 A.D.2d 853). In view of the nature of the offense and the defendant's apparent lack of remorse for the commission thereof, it cannot be said that the court erred in refusing to grant him youthful offender status.
The amendment of the bill of particulars by the People nearly four months prior to trial was statutorily permissible (see, CPL 200.95), and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.