Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court misadvised him concerning the immigration consequences of his plea is without merit ( see CPL 220.50; cf. People v Argueta, 46 AD3d 46, 51). The defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to negotiate a plea to a crime that would not have constituted an "aggravated felony" under federal law ( 8 USC § 1101 [a] [43] [B]) rests largely on matter dehors the record and, to that extent, it cannot be reviewed ( see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 532, 533, lv denied 11 NY3d 790; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920). To the extent that the claim can be reviewed on the record, counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v Browning, 44 AD3d 1067, 1067-1068; People v Rodriguez, 32 AD3d 481, 482; People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488, 489).