Opinion
December 16, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that probation should not have been revoked. The defendant's probation officer testified that the defendant failed to report on a scheduled date and neglected to inform the Probation Department that he had been arrested. This testimony, which was uncontroverted, clearly established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation (see, CPL 410.70). We also find that the sentence imposed upon the revocation of probation was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.