Opinion
March 11, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
On this appeal, the defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated because he was not advised during the taking of the plea of his right "to testify in his own behalf". Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05 People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Ortiz, 105 A.D.2d 809; People v. Carrisquello, 106 A.D.2d 513). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required because the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9).
The defendant also contends that his sentence is unduly harsh and excessive and should therefore be modified. The sentence, however, was imposed in accordance with the plea agreement ( see, People v. La Lande, 104 A.D.2d 1052; People v. Nelson, 104 A.D.2d 1055; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Moreover, we find no basis for modification in the interest of justice ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Finally, we have reviewed the contentions raised by the defendant in his pro se brief and find them to be without merit ( see, People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852; People v. Johnson, 105 A.D.2d 711). Mollen, P.J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.