PEOPLE v. IPPOLITO (1997)

 Defendant contends that his sentence was illegally imposed because County Court denied his request for an adjournment to consider whether to withdraw his guilty plea after the previously imposed sentence was found to violate the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 70.25[2-a] ).   The determination whether to grant an adjournment of sentencing proceedings rests within the sound discretion of the court and, from our review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request (see, People v. Legault, 180 A.D.2d 912, 913, 580 N.Y.S.2d 115, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1051, 584 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 596 N.E.2d 416;  People v. Payne, 176 A.D.2d 827, 574 N.Y.S.2d 1014, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 862, 580 N.Y.S.2d 734, 588 N.E.2d 769).   Although the court refused to grant the adjournment, the court informed defense counsel prior to sentencing that it would entertain a motion to vacate the plea and sentence but defendant never availed himself of that opportunity (see, People v. Tubbs, 157 A.D.2d 915, 916, 550 N.Y.S.2d 441, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 744, 558 N.Y.S.2d 906, 557 N.E.2d 1202;  cf., People v. West, 80 A.D.2d 680, 681, 436 N.Y.S.2d 424).

The remaining contentions of defendant were waived by his voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653;  People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022;  People v. Saunders, 190 A.D.2d 1092, 594 N.Y.S.2d 670, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1019, 600 N.Y.S.2d 208, 616 N.E.2d 865).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: