| People v Fontanet |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01815 [126 AD3d 723] |
| March 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alexander Fontanet, Appellant. |
Virginia Boccio, Farmingdale, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley andJason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Donnino, J.), rendered May 11, 2009, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (six counts) and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon hisplea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's oral colloquy sufficientlyadvised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, and the record establishes thatthe defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right (see People v Bennett, 122AD3d 871 [2014]; People vPersaud, 118 AD3d 820 [2014]; People v Budden, 77 AD3d 672 [2010]; People v Burvick, 60 AD3d689 [2009]). The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary,and intelligent survives his valid appeal waiver (see People v Lujan, 114 AD3d 963, 964 [2014]). However,the defendant failed to preserve this contention (see People v Bennett, 122 AD3dat 871; People v Sabo, 117AD3d 1089 [2014]; Peoplev Ortiz, 116 AD3d 1070, 1070 [2014]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant'scontention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, becausethe defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate anessential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d359, 364 [2013]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People vLujan, 114 AD3d at 964).
The contentions raised in the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 are notproperly before this Court on the appeal from the judgment, and the defendant did notseek leave to appeal from the order denying the motion (see People v Washington, 45AD3d 880 [2007]; People vWynn, 40 AD3d 893 [2007]; People v Morales, 17 AD3d 487 [2005]; People vTorres, 194 AD2d 815 [1993]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Patterson, 106AD3d 757, 758 [2013]; People v Crummell, 84 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2011]; People v Brown, 75 AD3d655, 656 [2010]; People vGreeman, 49 AD3d 463, 464 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and LaSalle,JJ., concur.