PEOPLE v. BARBER (2000)

 We reject the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable.   County Court was not required to engage in any particular litany during the allocution in order to render the waiver valid (see, People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 910-911, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653;  People v. Coleman [appeal No. 1], 219 A.D.2d 827, 632 N.Y.S.2d 907).   The record establishes that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022).   That waiver encompasses the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements (see, People v. Bieniek, 178 A.D.2d 985, 580 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 997, 584 N.Y.S.2d 452, 594 N.E.2d 946) and in denying his request for youthful offender treatment (see, People v. Rocklin, 265 A.D.2d 920, 698 N.Y.S.2d 119, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 906, 707 N.Y.S.2d 391, 728 N.E.2d 990).   Because defendant was advised of the maximum sentence he could receive, the waiver also encompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence (see, People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416;   People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: