People v. LasantaPeople v. Lasanta
Defendant‘s sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. We find this argument to be unpersuasive. The record establishes that defendant was a regular dealer of narcotic drugs and has a criminal record. In addition, defendant agreed to the sentence included in the plea agreement in order to avoid exposure to a much longer sentence if convicted after trial. Therefore, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Herring, 74 AD3d 1579, 1580 [2010]; People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1123 [2010]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.