Opinion
February 22, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was given an opportunity to address the court at the time of sentencing in connection with his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, CPL 220.60; People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926; People v Morris, 118 A.D.2d 595, 596, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 947). The defendant failed at that time to assert any facts in support of his claim that he had a valid defense of justification, and so his current claim of innocence, which directly contradicts his plea allocution, was not substantiated (see, People v Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57; People v Soto, 129 A.D.2d 748, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 657). Also, the defendant's claim that he does not understand English is belied by a review of the extensive statements he made, in English, in response to various questions posed during the sentencing and plea proceedings, as well as during the course of his testimony before the Grand Jury. The defendant may not now claim that he misunderstood the terms of the plea bargain, which were clearly stated on the record and which are subject to but one interpretation (see, People v Cataldo, 39 N.Y.2d 578, 580; People v Welch, 129 A.D.2d 752).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.