Opinion
April 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J., Carol Berkman, J.).
We are unpersuaded that the sentences imposed were excessive, or that it was unduly harsh to run the probation violation term consecutive to the term for the assault. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime[s] charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in either sentence. (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305.)
Further, defendant's sentence for the assault was in accordance with his plea bargain and, "[h]aving received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms." (People v Felman, 141 A.D.2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 918.) The terms of that plea bargain also made clear that the recommendation that the probation violation be covered was not binding upon the court which would sentence defendant therefor.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.