Majority
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the colloquy during the plea proceeding, coupled with his written appeal waiver, demonstrates that his waiver of the right to appeal was effective (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 , 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 , 254-255 [2006]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 , 265-266 [2011]; cf. People v Reyes, 116 AD3d 798 [2014]). His knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appellate review of all aspects of his case precludes his contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in closing the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer at the suppression hearing (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 , 575 [1998]).
The parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.
Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Lopez 6 NY3d 248 at 254-255 p. 728
- People v. Bradshaw 18 NY3d 257 at 265-266 p. 728
- People v. Reyes 116 AD3d 798 p. 728
- People v. Muniz 91 NY2d 570 at 575 p. 728