It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [5]). We reject the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered ( see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). "No particular litany is required for an effective waiver of the right to appeal" ( People v McDonald, 270 AD2d 955, lv denied 95 NY2d 800; see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283), and the responses of defendant to Supreme Court's questions during the plea colloquy establish that he understood the proceedings and voluntarily waived the right to appeal ( see People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, lv denied 9 NY3d 882). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737), but it does not encompass defendant's challenge to the amount of restitution ordered inasmuch as that amount was not included in the terms of the plea agreement ( see People v Lovett, 8 AD3d 1007, lv denied 3 NY3d 673, 677; cf. People v Gordon, 43 AD3d 1330, lv denied 9 NY3d 1006). Contrary to defendant's contention, however, the People met their burden of establishing the victim's out-of-pocket loss by a preponderance of the evidence ( see CPL 400.30; People v Tzitzikalakis, 8 NY3d 217, 221).