We are unpersuaded. Defendant's requests for further specificity or his own confusion do not render the indictment inadequate, inasmuch as the general requirement that an indictment "contain... a statement in each count that the offense charged therein was committed on, or on or about, a designated date, or during a designated period of time" is qualified by the exception that an approximation of the time frame is appropriate "when time is not an essential element of the crime charged" (People v Smith, 137 A.D.3d 1323, 1325 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 974 [2016]; see People v Salmon, 179 A.D.3d 1404, 1405 [3d Dept 2020]). In this respect, the counts of the indictment challenged by defendant contained the relevant Penal Law provision, stated the elements of the crime charged along with an overview of the criminal conduct defendant was alleged to have committed and provided the date range pertinent to each count in which defendant allegedly committed the charged crimes (see People v Perez, 93 A.D.3d 1032, 1034-1035 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1000 [2012]; see also CPL 200.50 [6]). Furthermore, the People alleged in the initial bill of particulars that, between September 2, 2008 and December 31, 2016, defendant engaged in a systematic course of conduct by intentionally defrauding FWH, Warren County, the FUND, the Village of Lake George and two other entities.
a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea agreement (seePeople v. Pace, 192 A.D.3d 1274, 1274, 142 N.Y.S.3d 678 [2021] ; People v. Bowden, 177 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 114 N.Y.S.3d 482 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1157, 120 N.Y.S.3d 238, 142 N.E.3d 1140 [2020] ), and County Court made clear that such waiver was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty (seePeople v. Williams, 185 A.D.3d 1352, 1353, 126 N.Y.S.3d 440 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1116, 133 N.Y.S.3d 526, 158 N.E.3d 543 [2020] ; People v. Bridge, 166 A.D.3d 1168, 1168, 86 N.Y.S.3d 345 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1124, 93 N.Y.S.3d 262, 117 N.E.3d 821 [2018] ). Additionally, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court, which County Court confirmed defendant had reviewed with counsel, and defendant twice indicated that he had no questions with respect to the waiver of his appellate rights (seePeople v. Williams, 185 A.D.3d at 1353, 126 N.Y.S.3d 440 ; People v. Salmon, 179 A.D.3d 1404, 1404, 117 N.Y.S.3d 764 [2020] ; People v. Sassenscheid, 162 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 78 N.Y.S.3d 491 [2018] ). As we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver was valid, his challenge to the sentence imposed as harsh and excessive is precluded (seePeople v. Daniels, 193 A.D.3d 1179, 1180, 146 N.Y.S.3d 680 [2021] ).
], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1063 [2018]), defendant was made aware - prior to pleading guilty - that a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea agreement (see People v Pace, 192 A.D.3d 1274, 1274 [2021]; People v Bowden, 177 A.D.3d 1037, 1038 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1157 [2020]), and County Court made clear that such waiver was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see People v Williams, 185 A.D.3d 1352, 1353 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1116 [2020]; People v Bridge, 166 A.D.3d 1168, 1168 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1124 [2018]). Additionally, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court, which County Court confirmed defendant had reviewed with counsel, and defendant twice indicated that he had no questions with respect to the waiver of his appellate rights (see People v Williams, 185 A.D.3d at 1353; People v Salmon, 179 A.D.3d 1404, 1404 [2020]; People v Sassenscheid, 162 A.D.3d 1108, 1109 [2018]). As we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver was valid, his challenge to the sentence imposed as harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Daniels, 193 A.D.3d 1179, 1180 [2021]).
Nor are we persuaded that the waiver of appeal was otherwise invalid. County Court explained the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and distinguished it from the trial-related rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty, and defendant, in turn, indicated his understanding and acceptance thereof (see People v Bonner, 182 AD3d 867, 867 [2020]; People v Salmon, 179 AD3d 1404, 1404 [2020]). Additionally, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court, confirmed that he had discussed the waiver with counsel and indicated that he had no questions relative thereto (see People v Thacker, 173 AD3d 1360, 1361 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 938 [2019]; People v Tietje, 171 AD3d 1355, 1356 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1109 [2019]).
Defendant does not argue on appeal that his guilty plea was involuntary due to an improper demand by the People that he waive his pending speedy trial motion as a component of the plea agreement (see e.g. Defendant's contention that the 2015 indictment was facially defective relates to waivable, nonjurisdictional defects in the time and place of the charged crimes and is therefore foreclosed by his guilty plea and unchallenged appeal waiver (seePeople v. Salmon, 179 A.D.3d 1404, 1405, 117 N.Y.S.3d 764 [2020] ; People v. Slingerland, 101 A.D.3d 1265, 1265–1266, 955 N.Y.S.2d 690 [2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1104, 965 N.Y.S.2d 800, 988 N.E.2d 538 [2013] ). Finally, defendant's guilty plea and appeal waiver also foreclose his argument that County Court erred in amending the 2016 indictment to correct a nonjurisdictional error (seePeople v. Guerrero, 28 N.Y.3d 110, 117, 42 N.Y.S.3d 80, 65 N.E.3d 51 [2016] ; People v. McKinney, 122 A.D.3d 1083, 1083, 995 N.Y.S.2d 854 [2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1167, 15 N.Y.S.3d 299, 36 N.E.3d 102 [2015] ; People v. Stokely, 49 A.D.3d 966, 968, 853 N.Y.S.2d 221 [2008] ).
That written waiver stated that, although defendant ordinarily retained the right to appeal, he was waiving it in consideration of the plea agreement.Under all of the circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant, then a 27–year–old second felony offender with considerable experience with the criminal justice system (seePeople v. Lambert, 151 A.D.3d 1119, 1119, 55 N.Y.S.3d 526 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1092, 63 N.Y.S.3d 9, 85 N.E.3d 104 [2017] ), knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (seePeople v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11–12, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 [1989] ; People v. Salmon, 179 A.D.3d 1404, 1404, 117 N.Y.S.3d 764 [2020] ; People v. Almonte, 179 A.D.3d 1222, 1223, 116 N.Y.S.3d 782 [2020] ). In light of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's various challenges to the denial of his suppression motion and to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence are foreclosed (seePeople v. Ramos, 179 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 118 N.Y.S.3d 291 [2020] ; People v. Inman, 177 A.D.3d 1167, 1168, 115 N.Y.S.3d 148 [2019] ; People v. Johnson, 153 A.D.3d 1031, 1032, 60 N.Y.S.3d 580 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 980, 67 N.Y.S.3d 583, 89 N.E.3d 1263 [2017] ).
], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1063 [2018]), defendant was made aware - prior to pleading guilty - that a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea agreement (see People v Pace, 192 A.D.3d 1274, 1274 [2021]; People v Bowden, 177 A.D.3d 1037, 1038 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1157 [2020]), and County Court made clear that such waiver was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see People v Williams, 185 A.D.3d 1352, 1353 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1116 [2020]; People v Bridge, 166 A.D.3d 1168, 1168 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1124 [2018]). Additionally, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court, which County Court confirmed defendant had reviewed with counsel, and defendant twice indicated that he had no questions with respect to the waiver of his appellate rights (see People v Williams, 185 A.D.3d at 1353; People v Salmon, 179 A.D.3d 1404, 1404 [2020]; People v Sassenscheid, 162 A.D.3d 1108, 1109 [2018]). As we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver was valid, his challenge to the sentence imposed as harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Daniels, 193 A.D.3d 1179, 1180 [2021]).