MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law 140.20). Because defendant failed to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his contention that the plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Jackson, 278 A.D.2d 875, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 759). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine set forth in Lopez ( 71 N.Y.2d at 666), because defendant's plea colloquy did not negate an essential element of burglary in the third degree. In any event, the record establishes that defendant's plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel involves matters outside the record on appeal and therefore must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 ( see People v. Skye, 298 A.D.2d 889, 890). Finally, the record establishes that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 736; People v. Burse, 295 A.D.2d 968, 969, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 709), and that waiver encompasses the remaining contentions raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief. In any event, we conclude that those contentions lack merit.