Appellate Advocates (Victoria L. Benton of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by the brief, from a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jeffrey Gershuny, J.), imposed August 12, 2022, upon defendant's conviction of menacing in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14 [1]). Defendant's conviction stemmed from an incident in which he displayed what appeared to be a firearm and told the victim, "You want to see something? How about a bullet in your brain." The Criminal Court (Jeffrey Gershuny, J.) sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon 60-day term of incarceration and two-year term of probation. The Criminal Court included, as Condition No. 28 of defendant's probation, that defendant consent to a search by a probation officer, or a probation officer and his or her agent, of defendant's person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search. On appeal, defendant argues that Condition No. 28 was improperly imposed, and that the two-year term of probation was excessive and should be reduced as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. While defendant did not object to the imposition of [*2]probation conditions at sentencing, he was not required to preserve his challenge to Condition No. 28 for appellate review (see People v Hakes, 32 NY3d 624, 628 n 3 [2018]; People v Dranchuk, 203 AD3d 741, 742 [2022]; People v Acuna, 195 AD3d 854, 855 [2021]).

"A court has broad discretion to impose conditions of probation deemed reasonably related to a defendant's rehabilitation, reasonably necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life, reasonably necessary to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense, and reasonably necessary to prevent future incarceration" (People v Fields, 84 Misc 3d 19, 20-21 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024]; see Penal Law § 65.10 [1], [2] [l], [5]; People v Wahl, 302 AD2d 976 [2003]). Defendant has previously been convicted of offenses involving drugs and weapon possession. By his own admission to the probation department, defendant used to abuse heroin and crack/cocaine, and participates in a methodone program. In imposing probation conditions, the sentencing court has "the discretion to consider defendant's prior criminal history" (People v Bania, 9 Misc 3d 135[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51682[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see People v Cunningham, 153 AD2d 700 [1989]). Given the underlying offense, along with defendant's prior criminal history and history of drug abuse, Condition No. 28 is tailored to suit defendant and is reasonably related to his rehabilitation, reasonably necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life, and reasonably necessary to prevent his future incarceration (see People v Scott, 226 AD3d 443 [2024]; People v King, 151 AD3d 1651 [2017]; cf. People v Mensah, 221 AD3d 732 [2023]).

As a general rule, a defendant who has been sentenced according to the terms of a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement will not be heard to complain that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive (see People v Galvez, 72 AD3d 838 [2010]; People v Ubiles, 59 AD3d 572 [2009]; Fields, 84 Misc 3d 19). Under the circumstances presented, we find no basis to deviate from that rule. The sentence imposed did not constitute an abuse of sentencing discretion or a failure to observe sentencing principles, and defendant has not demonstrated the existence of mitigating or extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Vega, 73 AD3d 1218 [2010]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; Fields, 84 Misc 3d 19).

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.