Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to the validity of his plea of guilty ( see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; People v Tinsley, 32 AD3d 447; People v Ackridge, 31 AD3d 654). The rare case exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666) is inapplicable here because after the defendant made a statement allegedly negating his guilt, a further inquiry was conducted wherein the defendant admitted his guilt ( see People v Mead, 27 AD3d 767, 767-768).
In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily ( see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543; People v Lopez, supra; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17). Contrary to the defendant's claims, his plea was not rendered invalid by the court's failure to advise him of the possible immigration consequences of his plea ( see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403; CPL 220.50), or that as a result of this conviction he might receive an enhanced sentence for a subsequent conviction ( see People v Outer, 197 AD2d 543, 544). Moreover, although the transcript of the plea proceedings is silent as to whether a sentence was promised, it is clear from the transcript of the sentencing proceedings that the plea was negotiated based on the court's promise of a specific sentence.
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Latham, 90 NY2d 795, 799).