Opinion
March 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Insofar as the defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the top count of the indictment, he is now precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury (see, People v Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, 321, affd 53 N.Y.2d 338; People v Hunt, 148 A.D.2d 836; People v Torres, 96 A.D.2d 604).
In addition, the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution has not been preserved for our review since he failed to move to withdraw his plea at any time prior to sentencing (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 9; People v Moore, 149 A.D.2d 440). In any event, it is well established that a guilty plea will not be vacated merely because a defendant was unable or unwilling to describe or admit to the underlying facts of the charge where the plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences (see, People v Brown, 114 A.D.2d 1036; see also, North Carolina v Alford, 400 U.S. 25; People v Perkins, 89 A.D.2d 956).
Finally, the defendant's assertion of a purported off-the-record sentencing promise by another Judge is completely without merit. The defendant clearly and unequivocally acknowledged during the plea proceedings that he understood that he would receive the sentence that was actually imposed and that no other sentencing promises had been made to him (see, People v Osborne, 133 A.D.2d 855; People v Miner, 126 A.D.2d 798). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.