PEOPLE v. BROWN (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05).   We reject the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid.   County Court was not required to “ ‘engage in any particular litany’ ” (People v. Calvi, 89 N.Y.2d 868, 871, 653 N.Y.S.2d 89, 675 N.E.2d 843;  see People v. Looney, 20 A.D.3d 926, 797 N.Y.S.2d 344, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 805, 807, 803 N.Y.S.2d 34, 36, 836 N.E.2d 1157, 1159;  People v. Brown, 281 A.D.2d 962, 723 N.Y.S.2d 301, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 899, 730 N.Y.S.2d 796, 756 N.E.2d 84).   The plea allocution establishes that the waiver of the right to appeal was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered (see Calvi, 89 N.Y.2d at 871, 653 N.Y.S.2d 89, 675 N.E.2d 843;  Looney, 20 A.D.3d 926, 797 N.Y.S.2d 344;  Brown, 281 A.D.2d at 962, 723 N.Y.S.2d 301), even though some of defendant's responses to the court's inquiries were “ ‘monosyllabic’ ” (People v. Wilson, 38 A.D.3d 1348, 832 N.Y.S.2d 333).   The valid waiver encompasses defendant's contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress the showup identification (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Pan Zhi Feng, 15 A.D.3d 862, 789 N.Y.S.2d 592, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 809, 812, 803 N.Y.S.2d 38, 836 N.E.2d 1161;  People v. Cheatham, 266 A.D.2d 875, 698 N.Y.S.2d 188, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 917, 926, 708 N.Y.S.2d 357, 365, 729 N.E.2d 1156, 1164).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: