It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court failed to comply with the procedural requirements for adjudicating him a second felony offender pursuant to CPL 400.21. Even assuming, arguendo, that the People failed to file the predicate felony statement prior to sentencing (see CPL 400.21 [2]), we conclude that defendant was properly afforded notice of the predicate felony inasmuch as the record establishes that he received the predicate felony statement before he was sentenced (see generally People v Sampson, 30 AD3d 623 [2006], lv denied7 NY3d 817 [2006]). Furthermore, although the court failed to ask defendant at sentencing if he wished to controvert his second felony offender status pursuant to CPL 400.21 (3), defendant had contested his status at a prior hearing and raised the same contentions concerning his status in a written motion to vacate his plea. We conclude on the record before us that the court substantially complied with the requirements of CPL 400.21 (see People v Mateo, 53 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2008], lv denied11 NY3d 791 [2008]; People v Beu, 24 AD3d 1257 [2005], lv denied6 NY3d 809 [2006]; see also Sampson, 30 AD3d 623 [2006]).
