Matthew W. Brissenden, Garden City, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jared A. Chester of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered March 24, 2021, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 35/16, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered March 24, 2021, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 234/16.

ORDERED that the amended judgments are affirmed.

A court may not revoke a sentence of probation without finding that the defendant violated a condition of the sentence and affording the defendant an opportunity to be heard (see CPL 410.70[1]). The statutory requirements may be satisfied either by conducting a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70(3) (see People v Lora, 162 AD2d 719) or through an admission by the defendant of the violation, coupled with a proper waiver of the defendant's right to a hearing (see People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1040).

The defendant's contention that the procedure surrounding his admission to a violation of conditions of a previously imposed sentence of probation rendered the admission invalid is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Williams, 27 NY3d 212; People v Mestric, 173 AD3d 1218, 1219; People v Nahshal, 146 AD3d 817), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6]; People v Mestric, 173 AD3d 1218; People v Hazel, 145 AD3d 797).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.