DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's arguments concerning the alleged involuntariness of his plea and the supposed ineffectiveness of his former attorney hinge to a large extent on his claim that Nassau County lacked geographic jurisdiction in this case. This claim is incorrect ( see CPL 20.40[a]; People v. Tullo, 34 N.Y.2d 712, affg 41 A.D.2d 957; People v. Andjelovic, 198 A.D.2d 287; People v. Lovacco, 147 A.D.2d 592; People v. Nicoll, 3 A.D.2d 64, 69).
As a result of executing a general waiver of his right to appeal, the defendant effectively waived his right to claim that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Allen, 82 N.Y.2d 761; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9-10; People v. Coss, 309 A.D.2d 945, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 626; People v. Wronka, 6 A.D.3d 735).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Mackey, 77 N.Y.2d 846; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Demosthene, 2 A.D.3d 874, lv denied N.Y.3d [April 20, 2004]) or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.