case within the narrow exception in New York

2018The plea colloquy does not, contrary to defendant's contention, contain anything that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v LaSanta , 158 AD3d 897 , 897 [2018]).

2018We nevertheless conclude that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see Miller , 87 AD3d at 1303-1304; People v Hodge , 23 AD3d 1062, 1063 [4th Dept 2005]), and the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Townley , 286 AD2d 885, 885 [4th Dept 2001]).

2014Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).

2014Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).

2014Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).

2014Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).

2014Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument, to the extent that it survives his appeal waiver, is similarly unpreserved for our review (see People v Livziey, 117 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument, to the extent that it survives his appeal waiver, is similarly unpreserved for our review (see People v Livziey, 117 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).

2014Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).

2001The plea allocution did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 , rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 ; People v Lopez, supra, at 666 ).

2001Contrary to defendant’s contention, the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, supra, at 726; People v Lopez, supra, at 666 ).

2016Here, defendant made no effort before County Court to call into question the voluntariness of his plea or the Judicial Diversion Program contract and said nothing during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Labaff, 127 AD3d 1471, 1471 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 931 [2015]).

2016Here, defendant made no effort before County Court to call into question the voluntariness of his plea or the Judicial Diversion Program contract and said nothing during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Labaff, 127 AD3d 1471, 1471 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 931 [2015]).

2013Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is not preserved, as the record does not indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, and he made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Secore, 102 AD3d at 1060 ; People v Benson, 100 AD3d 1108, 1108-1109 [2012]).

2013Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is not preserved, as the record does not indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, and he made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Secore, 102 AD3d at 1060 ; People v Benson, 100 AD3d 1108, 1108-1109 [2012]).

2013Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument is similarly unpreserved for our review (see People v Walton, 101 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]; People v Benson, 100 AD3d at 1109 ).

2013Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument is similarly unpreserved for our review (see People v Walton, 101 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]; People v Benson, 100 AD3d at 1109 ).

2017Finally, defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea—which is premised entirely upon his unsuccessful claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—is unpreserved, as he did not make an appropriate postallocution motion and said nothing during the plea colloquy that would bring the case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Empey, 144 AD3d 1201, 1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; People v Skidds, 123 AD3d 1342 , 1342-1343 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]).

2015Defendant’s further challenge to the voluntariness of his plea was not preserved for our review by a postallocution motion to withdraw his plea, and he said nothing during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation require *1472 ment (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Skidds, 123 AD3d 1342, 1342-1343 [2014]).

2016A review of the plea allocution discloses that defendant did not *969 say anything that raised significant doubt as to his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his guilty plea so as to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-666 [1988]; People v Disotell, 123 AD3d at 1231 ; see also People v Williams, 27 NY3d 212, 220 [2016]).

2015Likewise, defendant has not preserved his argument that County Court abused its discretion in terminating him from the Judicial Diversion Program, as he admitted to violating the terms of the program in return for a specified sentence and made no effort to attack that agreement before County Court (see People v Disotell, 123 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2014]).

2024Moreover, although not encompassed by the waiver of his right to appeal, defendant's contention that his [*2]plea is involuntary is not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion, "and the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement" ( People v Retell , 211 AD3d 1181, 1182 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Elawar ,

2024Moreover, although not encompassed by the waiver of his right to appeal, defendant's contention that his [*2]plea is involuntary is not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion, "and the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement" ( People v Retell , 211 AD3d 1181, 1182 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Elawar ,

2024Moreover, although not encompassed by the waiver of his right to appeal, defendant's contention that his [*2]plea is involuntary is not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion, "and the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement" ( People v Retell , 211 AD3d 1181, 1182 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Elawar ,

2018We nevertheless conclude that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see Miller , 87 AD3d at 1303-1304; People v Hodge , 23 AD3d 1062, 1063 [4th Dept 2005]), and the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Townley , 286 AD2d 885, 885 [4th Dept 2001]).

2018Were we to reach this issue, we would find defendant's argument to be unavailing ( see People v White , 153 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2017]).

2018We nevertheless conclude that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see Miller , 87 AD3d at 1303-1304; People v Hodge , 23 AD3d 1062, 1063 [4th Dept 2005]), and the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Townley , 286 AD2d 885, 885 [4th Dept 2001]).

2018We nevertheless conclude that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see Miller , 87 AD3d at 1303-1304; People v Hodge , 23 AD3d 1062, 1063 [4th Dept 2005]), and the plea allocution does not engender significant doubt regarding defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Townley , 286 AD2d 885, 885 [4th Dept 2001]).

2017Finally, defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea—which is premised entirely upon his unsuccessful claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—is unpreserved, as he did not make an appropriate postallocution motion and said nothing during the plea colloquy that would bring the case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Empey, 144 AD3d 1201, 1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; People v Skidds, 123 AD3d 1342 , 1342-1343 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]).

2016A review of the plea allocution discloses that defendant did not *969 say anything that raised significant doubt as to his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his guilty plea so as to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-666 [1988]; People v Disotell, 123 AD3d at 1231 ; see also People v Williams, 27 NY3d 212, 220 [2016]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s further contention, her “affirmative and unequivocal responses to County Court’s inquiry did not otherwise signal doubt regarding [her] guilt or the voluntariness of [her] plea” such as to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]; see People v Aubrey, 73 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 893 [2011]).

2014Although defendant next argues that County Court abused its discretion in terminating her from the Judicial Diversion Program, she admitted to violating the terms of the program in return for a specified sentence and her failure to attack that agreement before County Court leaves the issue unpreserved (see People v Cooney, 120 AD3d 1445, 1446 [2014]).