Rose, J.
Defendant contends that his plea allocution is ambiguous concerning his physical possession of the controlled substance here, thus casting doubt upon his guilt. Because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, however, he has failed to preserve this challenge to the sufficiency of the colloquy (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665). In any event, the record discloses that County Court conducted a thorough plea allocution, and defendant entered a knowing and voluntary plea, including factual admissions disclosing no circumstances warranting further inquiry by County Court as to his guilt (see, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726; People v. Kemp, 288 A.D.2d 635, 636; People v. Ward, 282 A.D.2d 871).
In addition, defendant signed a waiver of his right to appeal that we find, based upon our review of the record, was also voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. Such a waiver will be upheld absent the violation of a constitutional or statutory mandate (see, People v. Hildalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1), and it will encompass defendant's pro se objections to County Court's pretrial rulings (see, People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831). While a waiver of appeal will not foreclose a challenge to the competency of counsel where the claimed ineffectiveness induced an otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea (see, People v. Ferguson, 192 A.D.2d 800, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 717), the record provides no reason to conclude that such was the case here. Accordingly, defendant's pro se claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel was forfeited by his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Wood, 277 A.D.2d 515, 516, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 789.
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.