Initially, defendant is not precluded by the unchallenged appeal waiver, regardless of its validity, from raising this issue (seePeople v. Turner, 158 A.D.3d 892, 893, 70 N.Y.S.3d 610 [3d Dept. 2018] ). A court may impose an enhanced sentence when it is established that the defendant violated an express condition of the plea agreement (seePeople v. Woods, 150 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 55 N.Y.S.3d 780 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1095, 63 N.Y.S.3d 12, 85 N.E.3d 107 [2017] ), including a condition that the defendant cooperate truthfully in answering questions during a Probation Department interview (seePeople v. Ackley, 192 A.D.3d 1203, 1204, 143 N.Y.S.3d 452 [3d Dept. 2021] ; People v. Takie, 172 A.D.3d 1249, 1250, 101 N.Y.S.3d 141 [2d Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1109, 106 N.Y.S.3d 654, 130 N.E.3d 1264 [2019] ). Before imposing an enhanced sentence, however, due process requires that a sufficient inquiry be conducted by the court in order for it to determine that the plea conditions were indeed violated by the defendant (seePeople v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d 714, 715, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990 [2004] ; People v. Ackley, 192 A.D.3d at 1205, 143 N.Y.S.3d 452 ).

We disagree. "There is no question that an enhanced sentence may be imposed on a defendant who, in violation of an express condition of a plea agreement, has failed to truthfully answer questions during a Probation Department interview" (People v Ackley, 192 A.D.3d 1203, 1204 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). Still, a "sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed" (People v Anderson, 177 A.D.3d 1031, 1032 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Kiefer, 195 A.D.3d 1315, 1316 [3d Dept 2021]).