Defendant further contends that the guilty plea was improperly entered because he gave monosyllabic, perfunctory responses to the court's questions during the plea colloquy and because statements he made at sentencing negated his guilt and thus warranted further inquiry by the court. That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Brown, 204 A.D.3d 1519, 1519 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1069 [2022]; People v Brinson, 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1559-1560 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Rathburn, 178 A.D.3d 1421, 1421 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 944 [2020]). In any event, a defendant's monosyllabic responses to a court's questions do not render a plea invalid (see People v Adams, 201 A.D.3d 1311, 1313 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1007 [2022]; Brinson, 192 A.D.3d at 1560; Rathburn, 178 A.D.3d at 1421-1422). With respect to the statements defendant made at sentencing, we note that "a trial court has no duty, in the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, to conduct a further inquiry concerning the plea's voluntariness 'based upon comments made by [the] defendant during... sentencing'" (Brown, 204 A.D.3d at 1519; see People v Mobayed, 158 A.D.3d 1221, 1223 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1015 [2018]). Moreover, defendant said nothing at sentencing that called into doubt the voluntariness of his plea (see generally People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666 [1988]).
Defendant further contends that the guilty plea was improperly entered because he gave monosyllabic, perfunctory responses to the court’s questions during the plea colloquy and because statements he made at sentencing negated his guilt and thus warranted further inquiry by the court. That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Brown, 204 A.D.3d 1519, 1519, 167 N.Y.S.3d 293 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1069, 171 N.Y.S.3d 456, 457, 191 N.E.3d 408, 409 [2022]; People v. Brinson, 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1559-1560, 143 N.Y.S.3d 489 [4th Dept. 2021]; People v. Rathburn, 178 A.D.3d 1421, 1421, 112 N.Y,S.3d 654 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 944, 124 N.Y.S.3d 282, 147 N.E.3d 552 [2020]). In any event, a defendant’s monosyllabic responses to a court’s questions do not render a plea invalid (see People v. Adams, 201 A.D.3d 1311, 1313, 161 N.Y.S.3d 613 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1007, 168 N.Y.S.3d 357, 188 N.E.3d 549 [2022]; Brinson, 192 A.D.3d at 1560, 143 N.Y.S.3d 489; Rathburn, 178 A.D.3d at 1421-1422, 112 N.Y.S.3d 654).
To the extent that defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of her plea is based on matters outside the record on appeal, her contention must be raised by way of a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Smith, 214 A.D.3d 1339, 1339 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1157 [2023]; People v Sheppard, 149 A.D.3d 1569, 1569 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1133 [2017]). We reject, however, defendant's contention that her monosyllabic responses to questions posed by the court establish that her plea is invalid (see People v Brinson, 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1560 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Bullock, 78 A.D.3d 1697, 1698 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 742 [2011]).
. We reject, however, defendant's contention that her monosyllabic responses to questions posed by the court establish that her plea is invalid (seePeople v. Brinson , 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1560, 143 N.Y.S.3d 489 [4th Dept. 2021] ; People v. Bullock , 78 A.D.3d 1697, 1698, 910 N.Y.S.2d 750 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 742, 917 N.Y.S.2d 624, 942 N.E.2d 1049 [2011] ). Finally, we conclude that defendant's agreed-upon sentence is not unduly harsh or severe, and we decline defendant's request to exercise our power to reduce the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b] ; People v. Fuller , 147 A.D.3d 1344, 1344, 46 N.Y.S.3d 744 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1031, 62 N.Y.S.3d 300, 84 N.E.3d 972 [2017] ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention in appeal No. 1, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. It is well settled that "there is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime[s] during the plea colloquy" (People v Bullock, 78 A.D.3d 1697, 1698 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 742 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Brinson, 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1560 [4th Dept 2021]), and the record here "establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of [the court's] recitation of the facts underlying the crime[s]" (People v Gordon, 98 A.D.3d 1230, 1230 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 932 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Pryce, 148 A.D.3d 1625, 1626 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1085 [2017]). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions concerning appeal No. 1 and conclude that they lack merit.
Contrary to defendant's further contention in appeal No. 1, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. It is well settled that "there is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime[s] during the plea colloquy" ( People v. Bullock , 78 A.D.3d 1697, 1698, 910 N.Y.S.2d 750 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 742, 917 N.Y.S.2d 624, 942 N.E.2d 1049 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seePeople v. Brinson , 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1560, 143 N.Y.S.3d 489 [4th Dept. 2021] ), and the record here "establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of [the court's] recitation of the facts underlying the crime[s]" ( People v. Gordon , 98 A.D.3d 1230, 1230, 951 N.Y.S.2d 278 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 932, 957 N.Y.S.2d 692, 981 N.E.2d 289 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seePeople v. Pryce , 148 A.D.3d 1625, 1626, 51 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1085, 64 N.Y.S.3d 175, 86 N.E.3d 262 [2017] ). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions concerning appeal No. 1 and conclude that they lack merit.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for defense counsel's alleged shortcomings ( People v. Rivera , 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988] ). To the extent that defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel's failure to adequately communicate with him or to advise him that he faced consecutive terms of imprisonment, his contention involves matters " ‘between defendant and his attorney outside the record on appeal, and it must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 ’ " ( People v. Brinson , 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1560, 143 N.Y.S.3d 489 [4th Dept. 2021] ; seePeople v. Barnes , 56 A.D.3d 1171, 1171-1172, 867 N.Y.S.2d 607 [4th Dept. 2008] ). To the extent that defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to satisfactorily review the appeal waiver with defendant, we conclude that "such claim is rendered moot as a result of our determination that the appeal waiver was invalid" ( People v. Downs , 194 A.D.3d 1118, 1119, 146 N.Y.S.3d 695 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 971, 150 N.Y.S.3d 694, 172 N.E.3d 806 [2021] ).
Defendant has failed to demonstrate "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for defense counsel's alleged shortcomings (People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709 [1988]). To the extent that defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel's failure to adequately communicate with him or to advise him that he faced consecutive terms of imprisonment, his contention involves matters" 'between defendant and his attorney outside the record on appeal, and it must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10'" (People v Brinson, 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1560 [4th Dept 2021]; see People v Barnes, 56 A.D.3d 1171, 1171-1172 [4th Dept 2008]). To the extent that defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to satisfactorily review the appeal waiver with defendant, we conclude that "such claim is rendered moot as a result of our determination that the appeal waiver was invalid" (People v Downs, 194 A.D.3d 1118, 1119 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 971 [2021]).
Defendant has failed to demonstrate "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for defense counsel's alleged shortcomings (People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709 [1988]). To the extent that defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel's failure to adequately communicate with him or to advise him that he faced consecutive terms of imprisonment, his contention involves matters" 'between defendant and his attorney outside the record on appeal, and it must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10'" (People v Brinson, 192 A.D.3d 1559, 1560 [4th Dept 2021]; see People v Barnes, 56 A.D.3d 1171, 1171-1172 [4th Dept 2008]). To the extent that defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to satisfactorily review the appeal waiver with defendant, we conclude that "such claim is rendered moot as a result of our determination that the appeal waiver was invalid" (People v Downs, 194 A.D.3d 1118, 1119 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 971 [2021]).