DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's general waiver of his right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Furthermore, the defendant was aware that his failure to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement would subject him to an enhanced sentence and what that sentence might be. Accordingly, appellate review of his contention that the enhanced sentence was unduly harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v. Garbutt, 286 A.D.2d 402, 403; People v. Pike, 276 A.D.2d 649; see also People v. Waldron, 257 A.D.2d 771).
The defendant's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion was foreclosed when he waived his right to appeal (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833; People v. Brathwaite, 263 A.D.2d 89, 91).
In addition, the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that it may have affected the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Herring, 274 A.D.2d 525; People v. Nicholas, 272 A.D.2d 629, 630). We find that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
Finally, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited judicial review of the nonjurisdictional issues concerning alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227; People v. Johnson, 299 A.D.2d 368, 369).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are not subject to appellate review because he waived his right to appeal.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.