ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not voluntary because, since he had stated during his pre-sentence investigation that he was probably drunk at the time of the offenses, the sentencing court improperly failed to inquire into a possible intoxication defense. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the jugment on that ground (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Corona, 276 A.D.2d 639; People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule described in People v. Lopez (supra), does not apply since there is nothing in the defendant's allocution which would cast significant doubt on his guilt, or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see, People v. Lopez, 283 A.D.2d 591; People v. Doctor, 270 A.D.2d 283; People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725).
FRIEDMANN, J.P., SMITH, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.