grandfather as to the mother's statements shortly after the encounter and the mother's recorded 911 call, was hearsay, said evidence was properly considered by County Court under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v. Haskins, 121 A.D.3d 1181, 1183–1184, 994 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1120, 3 N.Y.S.3d 761, 27 N.E.3d 475 [2015] ; People v. Auleta, 82 A.D.3d 1417, 1418–1419, 919 N.Y.S.2d 222 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 813, 929 N.Y.S.2d 801, 954 N.E.2d 92 [2011] ; People v. Nelson, 266 A.D.2d 725, 726, 698 N.Y.S.2d 755 [1999], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 801, 711 N.Y.S.2d 169, 733 N.E.2d 241 [2000] ). To the extent that the responding officer's testimony regarding the mother's statements two hours after the incident constitutes hearsay and does not fall under the excited utterance exception, we note that such evidence did not provide the sole basis for County Court's violation finding (see People v. Coupe, 124 A.D.3d at 1142, 2 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; compare People v. DeMoney, 55 A.D.3d 953, 954, 865 N.Y.S.2d 153 [2008] ). According appropriate deference to County Court's credibility determinations, we find that the record evidence amply supports the finding that defendant violated the terms of his probation (see People v. Filipowicz, 111 A.D.3d 1022, 1022–1023, 974 N.Y.S.2d 653 [2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1156, 984 N.Y.S.2d 640, 7 N.E.3d 1128 [2014] ; compare People v. DeMoney, 55 A.D.3d at 954, 865 N.Y.S.2d 153 ).

The evidence was sufficient to prove the violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence as to all but one of the allegations. Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation (see People v Filipowicz, 111 AD3d 1022, 1022-1023 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1156 [2014]; People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d 953, 954 [2008]). While only hearsay was submitted to support

Although the mother of defendant's child was his fiancee at the time he filed the motion at issue, he asserts in his brief that she is now his wife. Initially, defendant may not challenge the terms and conditions of probation imposed as part of his original sentence, as he did not appeal from the judgment of conviction and the time to do so has passed ( see People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d 953, `954 [2008]). Further, County Court, which was authorized to modify the conditions of defendant's probation at any time prior to the expiration of his sentence ( see CPL 410.

Defendant appeals. The People were required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated a condition of his probation ( see CPL 410.70; People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d 953, 954). Defendant contends that the People failed to meet this obligation by presenting only hearsay evidence of his violation of the curfew.

"A hearing on a probation violation is a summary, informal procedure which does not require strict adherence to the rules of evidence" (People v Tyrrell, 101 A.D.2d 946, 946 [1984]; see People v Herring, 178 A.D.3d 1073, 1074 [2019]). "Hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation violation hearing and may be considered along with other evidence, but the court cannot conclude that a defendant violated probation without 'a residuum of competent legal evidence'" (People v DeMoney, 55 A.D.3d 953, 954 [2008], quoting People v Machia, 96 A.D.2d 1113, 1114 [1983]). Here, the Justice Court "properly took judicial notice of its own file" (People v Williams, 164 A.D.3d 845, 845 [2018]) and "its own prior proceedings" (People v Beauvais, 101 A.D.3d 1488, 1489 [2012]), including the original presentence investigation report, criminal history report, the terms and conditions of probation, subsequent accusatory instruments, the Violation of Probation petition, and an addendum to the Violation of Probation petition (see Herring, 178 A.D.3d at 1074; Williams, 164 A.D.3d at 845; Beauvais, 101 A.D.3d at 1489).

dence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation" (People v. Dettelis, 137 A.D.3d 1722, 1722, 28 N.Y.S.3d 216 ; see CPL 410.70 [3 ] ). "Although hearsay evidence is admissible in probation violation proceedings ..., the People must present facts of a probative character, outside of the hearsay statements, to prove the violation" (People v. Pettway, 286 A.D.2d 865, 865, 730 N.Y.S.2d 597, lv. dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 686, 738 N.Y.S.2d 302, 764 N.E.2d 406 ; see People v. Owens, 258 A.D.2d 901, 901, 685 N.Y.S.2d 556, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 975, 695 N.Y.S.2d 61, 716 N.E.2d 1106 ). Contrary to the People's contention, the only evidence adduced at the hearing that defendant had violated the condition that he successfully complete treatment at an out-of-town residential substance abuse program was the hearsay statement of a counselor to defendant's probation officer that defendant was not compliant with his treatment and had been unsuccessfully discharged from the program (see People v. DeMoney, 55 A.D.3d 953, 954, 865 N.Y.S.2d 153 ; Owens, 258 A.D.2d at 901, 685 N.Y.S.2d 556 ; cf. People v. Michael J.F., 15 A.D.3d 952, 953, 788 N.Y.S.2d 910 ). We thus conclude that Supreme Court's finding that defendant violated the subject condition of his probation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see CPL 410.70[3] ).

We agree. "The People have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation" (People v Dettelis, 137 AD3d 1722, 1722; see CPL 410.70 [3]). "Although hearsay evidence is admissible in probation violation proceedings . . . , the People must present facts of a probative character, outside of the hearsay statements, to prove the violation" (People v Pettway, 286 AD2d 865, 865, lv dismissed 97 NY2d 686; see People v Owens, 258 AD2d 901, 901, lv denied 93 NY2d 975). Contrary to the People's contention, the only evidence adduced at the hearing that defendant had violated the condition that he successfully complete treatment at an out-of-town residential substance abuse program was the hearsay statement of a counselor to defendant's probation officer that defendant was not compliant with his treatment and had been unsuccessfully discharged from the program (see People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d 953, 954; Owens, 258 AD2d at 901; cf. People v Michael J.F., 15 AD3d 952, 953). We thus conclude that Supreme Court's finding that defendant violated the subject condition of his probation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see CPL 410.70 [3]).

The People have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated a term of his probation ( see CPL 410.70[3]; People v. Rockefeller, 79 A.D.3d 1527, 1527, 913 N.Y.S.2d 417 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 862, 923 N.Y.S.2d 424, 947 N.E.2d 1203 [2011] ). Probation violation hearings are summary in nature and evidence presented thereat may include hearsay, although that may not be the sole basis for the finding of a violation ( see People v. DeMoney, 55 A.D.3d 953, 954, 865 N.Y.S.2d 153 [2008]; People v. Trathen, 2 A.D.3d 1065, 768 N.Y.S.2d 675 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 635, 777 N.Y.S.2d 33, 808 N.E.2d 1292 [2004] ). Here, the People met their initial burden of demonstrating that defendant violated a condition of probation by introducing into evidence the terms of his probation, the report prepared by Warberg, the physical evidence confiscated from defendant's home and the testimony of King.

The record establishes that County Court found that the People failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to their allegations that defendant violated the conditions of his probation by failing to comply with drug and alcohol treatment requirements, and thus there is no issue with respect to defendant's alleged inability to pay for that treatment. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly determined that the People met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant otherwise violated the terms and conditions of his probation ( see People v Donahue, 64 AD3d 1187; People v Bergman, 56 AD3d 1225, lv denied 12 NY3d 756). The People presented evidence that defendant missed four required sex offender treatment appointments ( see Donohue, 64 AD3d at 1188), possessed pornographic materials, and failed to stay away from a park frequented by children, as directed by his probation officer ( cf. People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d 953, 954). In addition, defendant's probation officer testified at the violation hearing that she observed defendant at a convenience store while he was on probation, and that his travel log did not contain the required entry reflecting that trip. That nonhearsay testimony provided the necessary "`residuum of competent legal evidence'" ( id.) that defendant violated a condition of his probation, by establishing that defendant failed to maintain the required log of his daily travel ( see generally People v Roberge, 293 AD2d 913, 914, lv denied 98 NY2d 680). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.