With respect to indictment number 6165/02, as the People concede, since the crime was committed before the effective date of the legislation (Penal Law § 60.35 [e]) providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed ( see People v. Taylor, 10 AD3d 559). Since this issue involves the substantive legality of the sentence, it survives defendant's waiver of his right to appeal.
With respect to indictment number 4606/03, as the People concede, the sentence and commitment sheet should be amended to reflect that defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree ( see People v. Reynolds, 268 AD2d 384).
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which precludes our interest of justice review of his excessive sentence claim ( People v. Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9-10). In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentences.