Opinion
February 7, 2001.
Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Fahey, J. — Violation of Probation.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, BURNS AND LAWTON, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
County Court did not err in sentencing defendant upon his conviction of violation of probation without requiring or considering an updated presentence investigation report. Although a court should review an updated presentence report before resentencing defendant on a violation of probation ( see, CPL 390.20; People v. Simpson, 179 A.D.2d 831), documents that inform the court of all relevant changes in defendant's status may substitute as the "functional equivalent" of a presentence report ( People v. Hemingway, 222 A.D.2d 1102, 1103, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 1020; see, People v. Gilyard, 161 A.D.2d 464; People v. Sanchez, 143 A.D.2d 377, 378, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 790). The declaration of delinquency and violation of probation report prepared by defendant's probation officer, as well as the letter from Vera House advising the court that defendant had been permanently dismissed from the program, constituted the functional equivalent of an updated report ( see, People v. Hemingway, supra, at 1103). "Although CPL 390.20 (1) requires a presentence investigation report when a sentence is imposed upon a felony conviction, where, as here, the court is fully familiar with any changes in defendant's status, conduct or condition since the original report was prepared, an updated report is not required" ( People v. Reaves, 216 A.D.2d 945, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 801; see, People v. Perry [Charles], ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided Dec. 27, 2000]). Moreover, defendant did not request an updated report ( see, People v Perry, supra; People v. Shattuck, 214 A.D.2d 1026, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 740). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.