Court Opinion

ID: 5877021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 02:04:24.544282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:51.523947
License: Public Domain

Defendant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v De Santis, 108 AD2d 821; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944). Moreover, reversal is not warranted in the interest of justice because the record establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Carrisquello, 106 AD2d 513). Nor do we perceive any basis for concluding that the sentence, which was the product of a negotiated plea, requires modification in the interest of justice (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.