purpose of a penal sanction.”); see also People v. Glendenning, 127 Misc.2d 880, 487 N.Y.S.2d 952, 953-54 (Sup.Ct. 1985) (“The judicial role in plea bargaining is that of overseeing and supervising the delicate balance of public and private interests. The court is to act as an impartial referee and not as an advocate. This posture keeps the court within the scope of the separation of powers doctrine, under which the executive branch, represented by the prosecutor, has the primary responsibility for determining which violations of the law shall be prosecuted.”). Under New'York law it is within the court’s discretion to accept a plea, reject a plea, or attach reasonable conditions to the acceptance of a plea. See, e.g., People v. Sherrington, 25 A.D.3d 628, 807 N.Y.S.2d 144, 145 (2006) (<HOLDING>).' It is well settled that “any sentence
holding that probationer failed to satisfy two of the three prongs of the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition was reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation recognizing that probation condition required probationer to enter into and successfully complete a sex offender treatment program but finding that no condition of probation was imposed that required him to admit to a counselor the sexual acts charged holding that it is not fundamentally unfair for court to condition its granting of permission to enter plea upon condition that defendant admit he acted in concert with two codefendants who were under indictment for the same crimes holding that receiving advice or treatment during the exclusionary period for a condition which proves to be the same condition the claimant seeks benefits for qualifies as a preexisting condition regardless of whether there was an accurate diagnosis holding that a condition subsequent presupposes an existing obligation that is to be defeated or forfeited if the condition is not fulfilled