Opinion
April 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant does not contend that there was any error in the violation of probation proceeding which resulted in the amended judgment. Although the defendant alleges error in the original allocution which culminated in the underlying judgment, that proceeding is not properly before this Court on the appeal from the amended judgment (People v Heckstall, 65 A.D.2d 581; People v Lugo, 176 A.D.2d 177). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.