PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ (2018)

Judgment of conviction (Louis L. Nock, J.), rendered November 17, 2016, affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the amount of restitution inasmuch as he expressly consented, without objection, to that amount at the plea proceeding and at the time of sentencing, and he did not request a hearing on that issue (see People v. Paul, 159 AD3d 657 [2018] ). In any event, we are not persuaded that the bargained-for sentence imposed upon defendant's conviction of two counts of driving while intoxicated, including payment of restitution in the agreed-upon amount of $5,000, was unduly harsh or excessive, and find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest of justice (see People v. Fair, 33 AD3d 558 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]; People v. Suros, 209 AD2d 203 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 943 [1995], cert denied 516 US 862 [1995] ). Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his bargained for plea and should not now “be heard to complain that he received what he bargained for” (People v. Fair, 33 AD3d at 558, quoting People v. Chambers, 123 AD2d 270 [1986] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.