Peters, J.
Although defendant's waiver of the right to appeal does not in and of itself preclude appellate review of the voluntariness of his plea (see,People v. Conyers, 227 A.D.2d 793, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 982), the issue was not preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Beekman, 280 A.D.2d 784, lv denied 780). By failing to make the appropriate motion, defendant deprived County Court of the opportunity to address the alleged deficiency and, if necessary, take corrective action (see, People v. Tumminia, 272 A.D.2d 634, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 939). In any event, defendant's claim that his plea is the product of confusion and coercion has no support in the record.
Defendant's claim that the 4 to 15-year sentence is harsh and excessive is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733) and lacks merit in any event. Considering the nature of the crimes, the fact that the sentence was within the statutory guidelines and the substantial measure of leniency accorded defendant by the imposition of concurrent sentences for crimes that arose out of separate and distinct criminal transactions, we conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion and there are no extraordinary circumstances which would warrant the exercise of our authority to modify the sentence in the interest of justice.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.