Opinion
April 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
Defendant is not entitled to a reconstruction hearing of the 1984 proceeding relating to his sentence of probation because an appeal from a resentence, such as this, does not bring up for review the underlying judgment, which defendant had never appealed (CPL 450.30; see, People v Lugo, 176 A.D.2d 177). The imposition of a consecutive sentence was not unduly harsh.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.