Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal encompassed his present claim that his agreed-upon sentence is excessive ( see People v. Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733), and forecloses interest of justice review of that claim ( People v. Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9-10). In any event, were we to find that review was not precluded, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
However, since the crime was committed before the effective date of the legislation increasing the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee, defendant's sentence was unlawful to the extent indicated ( People v. Reeves, 6 AD3d 231). Since this issue involves the substantive legality of the sentence, it survives defendant's waiver of his right to appeal.