Opinion
November 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances herein, the court properly adjudicated the defendant in violation of probation based upon his plea of guilty, made through his defense counsel in open court and in the defendant's presence (see, CPL 410.70; People v. Lombardo, 108 A.D.2d 873, 874; cf., People v. Sadness, 300 N.Y. 69, cert denied 338 U.S. 952; People v. Bellis, 78 A.D.2d 1014).
The defendant's further contention that the court resentenced him without an updated presentence report from the Probation Department is equally without merit. The record clearly indicates that the court had considered the violation of probation report submitted by the Probation Department which was "the functional equivalent of an updated report because it inform[ed] the court of all `relevant changes which [had] occurred since preparation of the original presentencing report'" (People v. Jackson, 106 A.D.2d 93, 98, quoting from People v. Halaby, 77 A.D.2d 717, 718; see, People v. Goon, 124 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 711).
Finally, we find no basis in the record warranting modification of the new sentence imposed or the recusal of the Criminal Term Justice. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.