Crimes - Appeal - Valid Waiver of Right to Appeal

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (E. Niki Warin, J.), imposed September 21, 2022, upon his plea ofguilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the totality of the circumstances, therecord demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right toappeal (see People vThomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). Although much ofthe discussion of the waiver of the right to appeal occurred after the defendant admittedhis guilt, the appeal waiver was mentioned as a condition of the plea bargain prior to thedefendant's plea of guilty and admission of guilt. Thus, it cannot be said that thedefendant "received no material benefit from his appeal waiver" or that the appeal waiver"was a gratuitous, after-the-fact additional demand asserted after the bargain had alreadybeen struck" (People vSutton, 184 AD3d 236, 245 [2020]; see People v Sobers, 235 AD3d 908, 909 [2025]).Moreover, the Supreme Court did not mischaracterize the nature or scope of the waiverof the right to appeal (see People v Sobers, 235 AD3d at 909; People v Headley, 197 AD3d1329, 1330 [2021]), and the written waiver signed by the defendant adequatelysupplemented the oral colloquy (see People v Headley, 197 AD3d at 1330). Thedefendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3dat 253; People v Florio, 179AD3d 834, 835 [2020]). Iannacci, J.P., Chambers, Ford, Taylor and McCormack,JJ., concur.