Opinion
January 12, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of her plea allocution has not been preserved for appellate review since she did not move to withdraw her plea prior to sentencing (see, People v. Fuentes, 125 A.D.2d 328). Nor is reversal in the interest of justice required as the record reveals that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her rights and pleaded guilty (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). Moreover, by pleading guilty to a lesser included offense, the defendant forfeited her right to challenge the factual basis for the plea (see, People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 108; People v. Clairborne, 29 N.Y.2d 950, 951).
We further hold that the arresting officer's question to the defendant made at the time of her arrest was not for the purpose of eliciting an incriminating response but "was designed to clarify the nature of the situation confronted" (People v Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 34). The hearing court, therefore, properly declined to suppress the defendant's statement made in response to the officer's question (see, People v. Huffman, supra; People v. Rosen, 112 A.D.2d 253).
Lastly, we note that the sentence imposed was the one for which the defendant freely bargained. Accordingly, she has no basis to complain that her sentence is excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.