Majority
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contentions that County Court erred in summarily denying his suppression motion (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 , 7; People v Williams, 36 NY2d 829 , cert denied 423 US 873 ) and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 , 737; People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761 , 763). The contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Seaberg, supra, at 10 ; People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429 , 434, n 2). By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, however, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 , 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 ; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 , 665), and this case “does not qualify for the narrow, ‘rare case’ exception to the preservation doctrine” (People v Toxey, supra, at 726 ; see, People v Jackson, 258 AD2d 920 ; People v Allen, 258 AD2d 878 ). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Seaberg 74 NY2d 1 at 7 p. 1030
- People v. Williams 36 NY2d 829 p. 1030
- People v. Hidalgo 91 NY2d 733 at 737 p. 1030
- People v. Allen 82 NY2d 761 at 763 p. 1030
- People v. Francabandera 33 NY2d 429 at 434 p. 1030
- People v. Toxey 86 NY2d 725 at 726 p. 1030
- People v. Lopez 71 NY2d 662 at 665 p. 1030
- People v. Jones 258 AD2d 920 p. 1030
- In re the Claim of Hartman 258 AD2d 878 p. 1030