Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because the court failed to enumerate his constitutional rights and because his allocution was factually insufficient. Having failed to move to withdraw his plea on these grounds prior to the imposition of sentence or to otherwise raise this issue before the County Court, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the sufficiency of the plea allocution ( see CPL 470.05; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Jones, 21 AD3d 968; People v Watson, 19 AD3d 518; People v Singleton, 107 AD2d 828). Furthermore, the narrow exception to the preservation rule, as set forth in People v Lopez (supra at 666), is inapplicable since there is nothing in the allocution which would cast significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or negate any of the essential elements of the crimes pleaded to ( see People v Lopez, supra at 666; People v Palmer, 29 AD3d 606).