Opinion
July 28, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
By pleading guilty prior to the determination of his suppression motion, the defendant waived appellate review of all issues raised therein (see, People v Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686; People v Prescott, 66 N.Y.2d 216, 219-220, cert denied ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 1804; People v Bell, 110 A.D.2d 902; People v Querica, 106 A.D.2d 589; People v Corti, 88 A.D.2d 345). The challenge to the pleas has not been preserved by a motion to withdraw them or a motion to vacate the judgments (see, e.g., People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 N.Y.2d 997; People v Querica, supra). Moreover, since the plea allocutions complied with the basic requirements of People v Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9), nothing in the present record persuades us that vacatur of the pleas is warranted in the interest of justice. Inasmuch as there has been no abuse of discretion and neither a failure to observe sentencing principles nor a need to substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court, the defendant's objection to the sentences imposed is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.