Opinion
April 25, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.).
Defendant's contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive the right to appeal an adverse ruling on a suppression motion as a condition of his plea bargain (People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1), is without merit. The record confirms both that defendant was specifically and clearly apprised that he was waiving this right and that defendant acknowledged his understanding of that condition (compare, People v Ramos, 152 A.D.2d 209). Accordingly, we decline to address defendant's contention that the hearing court erroneously denied his motion to suppress physical evidence seized during one of the incidents giving rise to his conviction. Were we to address this argument, we would find it to be without merit as we do not find the testifying officer's testimony to be manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory (People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.