Defendant next asserts that County Court failed to adequately explain that it would not be bound by the recommendations of the Probation Department or the District Attorney prior to accepting his plea. This objection to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is not properly before us, however, for defendant has not moved to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see, People v. Khamsybounhevang, 237 A.D.2d 828, 829). Moreover, the court clearly informed him of the consequences of his plea and of the full panoply of sentencing options available to it, and defendant acknowledged that he had not been promised any specific sentence ( see, People v. Demers, 105 A.D.2d 979, 980).
Defendant seeks vacatur of his guilty plea on the ground that his plea allocution was insufficient and in fact negated an essential element of the crime. By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant has failed to preserve his challenge for appellate review (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Mao Khamsybounhevang, 237 A.D.2d 828; People v. Welcome, 190 A.D.2d 970, lvs denied 81 N.Y.2d 977, 978). Nor does the record support defendant's contention that this case falls within the narrow exception to the preservation rule where the factual recitation incident to the plea "casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" (People v. Lopez, supra, at 666). Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sodomy in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, based upon an incident wherein defendant, age 48, orally sodomized a 14-year-old boy. Plea negotiations resulted in defendant entering a plea to sexual abuse in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment.