Opinion
March 18, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
On appeal the defendant contends that the stop of his vehicle on the Southern State Parkway was improper because the State Troopers lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that he committed a speeding violation, and because the State Troopers' claim that the stop was predicated upon a traffic infraction was pretextual. However, since neither of these arguments was advanced before the hearing court, they are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Burgess, 168 A.D.2d 685). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the State Troopers' uncontroverted testimony that they observed him driving at a speed of 35 to 40 miles per hour on the parkway entrance ramp, which has a posted speed limit of 20 miles per hour, provided reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and justified the stop of the defendant's vehicle (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d]; People Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393; People v Francois, 155 A.D.2d 685; People v Ricciardi, 149 A.D.2d 742).
Further, the defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution under Indictment No. 71221 to the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, by pleading guilty to a lesser crime in full satisfaction of that charged in the indictment, the defendant forfeited the right to challenge the factual basis of the plea (see, People v Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97; People v McVay, 148 A.D.2d 474).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention, and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P.J., Brown, Sullivan and Eiber, JJ., concur.