People v. ThompsonPeople v. Thompson
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
The dеfendant failed to preserve his claim that the Supreme Court should have obtained an updated presentence report before resentencing him (see People v Grzywaczewski, 61 AD3d 699, 700 [2009]; People v Pomales, 37 AD3d 1098 [2007]; People v Gambichler, 25 AD3d 722, 723 [2006]). His claim is, in any event, without merit (see People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]; People v Davis, 30 AD3d 298 [2006]; People v Roberts, 214 AD2d 592, 593 [1995]).