Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the indictment is jurisdictionally defective because he is accused therein of crimes committed on a different date, at a different time and in a different place from those for which he was arrested. Although a jurisdictional defect in an indictment may be raised for the first time on appeal ( see, People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600), a mistake with respect to date, time or place is a technical defect rather than "a jurisdictional defect vital to the sufficiency of the indictment or the guilty plea entered thereto" ( People v. Kepple, 98 A.D.2d 783). "[A]n indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime" ( People v. Iannone, supra, at 600). Further, because defendant's contention raises only a technical defect rather than a jurisdictional one, that contention was forfeited by defendant's plea of guilty ( see, People v. Levin, 57 N.Y.2d 1008, 1009, rearg denied 58 N.Y.2d 824; People v. Vega, 268 A.D.2d 686).
The bargained-for sentence imposed by County Court is neither unduly harsh nor severe ( see, People v. Parker, 261 A.D.2d 926, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1024). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.