Opinion
November 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
The court had before it the original presentence report, the updated supplementary report and the violation of probation report (CPL 390.20; see, People v Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 238, cert denied 419 U.S. 1122). Where a defendant is sentenced for violation of probation, the presentence report upon which the probationary sentence was based must ordinarily be updated to reflect any changes in the defendant's circumstances relevant to the new sentence. (People v Gordon, 155 A.D.2d 225, 225-226.) New matter having been asserted by defense counsel and accepted as true by the court, the "`"functional equivalent"'" of an updated presentence report was before the court (People v Gilyard, 161 A.D.2d 464; see, People v Pagan, 172 A.D.2d 233, 234, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 925). The sentences imposed are not excessive in view of defendant's lengthy criminal record.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.