ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the Supreme Court (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 381-382; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v Rojas, 196 A.D.3d 704; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055-1056; People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 383-384; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20-21; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d at 703).

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see CPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702, 703). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055-1056; People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 383-384; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20-21; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d at 703).

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see CPL 220.60[3] ; 470.05[2]; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986, 142 N.Y.S.3d 834 ; People v. Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702, 703, 139 N.Y.S.3d 560 ). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (seePeople v. Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055–1056, 23 N.Y.S.3d 121, 44 N.E.3d 196 ; People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 383–384, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20–21, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. Fraser, 192 A.D.3d at 703, 139 N.Y.S.3d 560 ).

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see CPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702, 703). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055-1056; People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 383-384; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20-21; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d at 703).

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see CPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702, 703). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055-1056; People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 383-384; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20-21; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d at 703).

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see CPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702, 703). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055-1056; People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 383-384; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20-21; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d at 703).

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 192 A.D.3d 702 (Nassau)

In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that his decision to plead guilty was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see generallyPeople v. Hill, 9 N.Y.3d 189, 191, 849 N.Y.S.2d 13, 879 N.E.2d 152 ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 736, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543–544, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702, 139 N.Y.S.3d 560 ; People v. Hendrix, 172 A.D.3d 1224, 1224, 98 N.Y.S.3d 889 ; People v. Moye, 170 A.D.3d 1198, 1199, 95 N.Y.S.3d 535 ; People v. Rifino, 143 A.D.3d 741, 743, 39 N.Y.S.3d 37 ). CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY, LASALLE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.