PEOPLE v. SAPP (2000)

 Because defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution has not been preserved for our review (see, People v. Person, 256 A.D.2d 1232, 684 N.Y.S.2d 367, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 856, 688 N.Y.S.2d 504, 710 N.E.2d 1103;  People v. Nesbett, 255 A.D.2d 950, 682 N.Y.S.2d 324).   The plea allocution did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to require County Court to conduct a further inquiry (see, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160, rearg. denied 86 N.Y.2d 839, 634 N.Y.S.2d 447, 658 N.E.2d 225;  People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).   By pleading guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree and admitting that he was convicted of the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree in 1994, defendant waived his contention that reversal is required because the People failed to file a special information pursuant to CPL 200.60 (see, People v. Mooney, 245 A.D.2d 1137, 666 N.Y.S.2d 532, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 928, 670 N.Y.S.2d 410, 693 N.E.2d 757).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: