The record demonstrates, however, that, despite multiple opportunities, defendant was unable to abide by the conditions of his probation, admitting to, among other things, consuming alcohol and marihuana during his period of probation and twice removing an alcohol monitoring program bracelet. In view of the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v. Egloff, 107 A.D.3d 1242, 966 N.Y.S.2d 919 [2013]; People v. Brand, 100 A.D.3d 1154, 953 N.Y.S.2d 726 [2012] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion, defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is unpreserved for our review ( see People v. Alexander, 110 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 972 N.Y.S.2d 353 [2013] ). Further, in light of defendant's well-documented history of alcohol abuse and his extensive criminal history, including six felony driving while intoxicated convictions, we cannot say that the sentenceimposed is harsh or excessive ( see People v. Egloff, 107 A.D.3d 1242, 1242, 966 N.Y.S.2d 919 [2013];People v. Oehler, 52 A.D.3d 955, 957, 859 N.Y.S.2d 525 [2008],lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 792, 866 N.Y.S.2d 618, 896 N.E.2d 104 [2008].
County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to 2 to 6 years in prison. Although defendant now argues on appeal that the sentence is harsh and excessive, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest of justice ( see People v. Egloff, 107 A.D.3d 1242, 1242, 966 N.Y.S.2d 919 [2013]; People v. Campbell, 79 A.D.3d 1458, 1459, 912 N.Y.S.2d 815 [2010], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 829, 921 N.Y.S.2d 193, 946 N.E.2d 181 [2011] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.