Opinion
Argued January 25, 2000
March 9, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered January 20, 1998, convicting him robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the third degree (two counts), menacing in the second degree (two counts), and menacing in the third degree (two counts), under Indictment No. 2086/97, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered January 20, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 11184/97, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (3) an amended sentence of the same court, imposed February 27, 1998, on Indictment No. 2086/97.
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Ian Rose of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; and Beata Sajdak-Jones on the brief), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgments and the amended sentence are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his allocutions under both indictments were insufficient because the Supreme Court failed to inquire about a possible affirmative defense is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant neither moved to withdraw the pleas before sentencing on that ground nor moved to vacate the judgments of conviction (see, People v. Morillo, 221 A.D.2d 274 ). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule described in People v. Lopez ( 71 N.Y.2d 662 ) does not apply, since in his allocutions the defendant did not cast "significant doubt" on the validity of his pleas (see, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726 ).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, KRAUSMAN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.