Opinion
July 8, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, vacatur is not warranted in the interest of justice inasmuch as the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9) ( see, People v De Santis, 108 A.D.2d 821, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1018; People v Schron, 109 A.D.2d 762; People v. Moore, 110 A.D.2d 720).
The record does not support a conclusion that defendant was denied effective representation of counsel under either the "meaningful representation" or the Federal standards ( see, People v. Zaborski, 59 N.Y.2d 863; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S Ct 2052).
Defendant's sentence was not excessive. He received the minimum sentence legally permissible (Penal Law § 70.06 [e]; [4] [b]), which was in fact the sentence for which he had freely bargained ( see, People v. La Lande, 104 A.D.2d 1052; People v. Nelson, 104 A.D.2d 1055; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.