It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered ( see generally People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contentions concerning the denial of his request for youthful offender status ( see People v Scott, 31 AD3d 1190, 1191; People v Dorman, 5 AD3d 1094, lv denied 2 NY3d 798) and the severity of the sentence ( see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). In any event, those contentions are without merit. Although defendant met the eligibility requirements for youthful offender status, Supreme Court carefully considered the request to be considered a youthful offender and stated the reasons for its denial ( see generally People v Smith, 286 AD2d 878, lv denied 98 NY2d 641). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for youthful offender status ( see People v Ariola, 15 AD3d 882, 883, lv dismissed 5 NY3d 758). We further conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.