Opinion
March 8, 1991
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Lowery, JJ.
Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal as a condition of a negotiated plea bargain and sentence (see, People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1). The record further establishes that defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered in the presence of counsel and after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of his plea (see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v O'Keefe, 170 A.D.2d 1020; People v Gomez, 142 A.D.2d 649, lv dismissed 73 N.Y.2d 786). Although defendant claims that he had a limited understanding of the English language, it is clear from the record that an interpreter was present and assisted defendant throughout the plea and sentencing proceedings (see, People v Martes, 154 A.D.2d 946, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 870; People v Quezada, 145 A.D.2d 950, 951; People v Herrera, 107 A.D.2d 1040). Defendant acknowledged, through the interpreter, that he understood the terms of the plea bargain and that he willingly accepted them. Moreover, if we were to reach the merits, we would find that the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based upon defendant's generalized claims of innocence and coercion, which were not made during the plea allocution and are unsupported by the record (see, People v O'Keefe, supra; People v Gardner, 150 A.D.2d 722; People v Gomez, supra). Thus, this appeal should be dismissed (see, People v Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909; People v Derby, 168 A.D.2d 969).