Moreover, although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the transcript of the plea proceedings shows that the Supreme Court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver, discussed it with counsel, or was even aware of its contents (see People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 ; People v. Santeramo, 153 A.D.3d at 1287, 61 N.Y.S.3d 295 ; People v. Pacheco, 138 A.D.3d at 1036, 30 N.Y.S.3d 241 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 145, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).Since the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was invalid, this Court has reviewed the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender status (see People v. Hesterbey, 121 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 994 N.Y.S.2d 421 ; cf. People v. Nye, 299 A.D.2d 371, 372, 749 N.Y.S.2d 164 )."The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case" ( People v. Hesterbey, 121 A.D.3d at 1128, 994 N.Y.S.2d 421 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 500, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Beer, 146 A.D.3d 895, 897 ).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06101 [2d Dept.2014] ), and does not bar review of the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender status (cf. People v. Nye, 299 A.D.2d 371, 372, 749 N.Y.S.2d 164 ). “ ‘The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ ” (People v. Mullings, 83 A.D.3d 871, 872, 921 N.Y.S.2d 152, quoting People v. Ortega, 114 A.D.2d 912, 912, 495 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; see People v. Ciminera, 202 A.D.2d 684, 612 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; People v. Carter, 143 A.D.2d 925, 926, 533 N.Y.S.2d 521 ). Here, we find no basis for disturbing the Supreme Court's determination to deny youthful offender status to the defendant.
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257; People v Brown, _____AD3d_____ , 2014 NY Slip Op 06101 [2d Dept 2014]), and does not bar review of the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender status (cf. People v Nye, 299 AD2d 371, 372). " The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case'" (People v Mullings, 83 AD3d 871, 872, quoting People v Ortega, 114 AD2d 912, 912; see People v Ciminera, 202 AD2d 684; People v Carter, 143 AD2d 925, 926).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender ( see People v. Friedlander, 11 AD3d 556; People v. Boykin, 1 AD3d 524, 524-525; People v. Nye, 299 AD2d 371).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contentions that he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender ( see People v. Nye, 299 A.D.2d 371; People v. Hubbard, 288 A.D.2d 490), and that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Barnes, 306 A.D.2d 537). SMITH, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and RIVERA, JJ., concur.