| People v Nimerofsky |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07967 [78 AD3d 735] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BradNimerofsky, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.),rendered March 31, 2010, convicting him of driving while intoxicated under Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1192 (3), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlymade (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Moissett, 76NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-17 [1983]; People vNixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353 [1967], cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US1067 [1969]). To the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistanceof counsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919[2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d920 [2008]). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, the defendant received meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Drago, 50AD3d 920 [2008]; People vBrooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882 [2006]).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence whichwas thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d732 [2009]; People v Fanelli, 8AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Mejia,6 AD3d 630 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). In any event, thesentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P.,Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.