DEVINE, J.
Linda B. Johnson, West Sand Lake, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John R. Thweatt of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, GARRY and DEVINE, JJ.
Opinion
DEVINE, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered April 12, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a six-count indictment related to the sale and possession of cocaine on three occasions, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was sentenced, as an admitted second felony offender, to the agreed-upon prison term of four years with three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel is not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Moses, 110 A.D.3d 1118, 1118, 972 N.Y.S.2d 363 [2013] ). In any event, “[i]t is well settled that in the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v. Wares, 124 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 2 N.Y.S.3d 270 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 993, 10 N.Y.S.3d 536, 32 N.E.3d 973 [2015] ). Counsel pursued appropriate pretrial motions and discovery, and ensured that the controlled substance
lab reports, which reflected that the substances tested positive for the presence of cocaine, were received before proceeding with the plea agreement. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that the
record reflects that defendant received meaningful representation (
see id. ). Any challenge to counsel's preplea motion practice or discovery efforts was forfeited by defendant's guilty plea (
see
People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230–231,
715 N.Y.S.2d 369,
738 N.E.2d 773 [2000] ;
People v. Trombley, 91 A.D.3d 1197, 1201,
937 N.Y.S.2d 665 [2012],
lv. denied
21 N.Y.3d 914,
966 N.Y.S.2d 366,
988 N.E.2d 895 [2013] ). Finally, to the extent that defendant makes arguments addressed to matters outside the record, such as what counsel investigated, they are more properly raised in a motion to vacate pursuant to CPL article 440 (
see
People v. Brown,
125 A.D.3d 1049, 1050,
2 N.Y.S.3d 699 [2015] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN and GARRY, JJ., concur.