Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of nine counts of burglary in the second degree ( see, Penal Law § 140.25). During the plea allocution, the statements of defendant raised the affirmative defense of intoxication. Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court conducted further inquiry before accepting the guilty plea and ascertained that defendant had the requisite intent to steal something from each of the dwellings. Thus, the court accepted the plea after establishing that there was no viable affirmative defense of intoxication negating the element of intent ( see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666-667; cf., People v. Costanza, 244 A.D.2d 988; People v. Simone, 179 A.D.2d 694).
The contention of defendant that the court further erred in accepting his guilty plea because he did not personally recite the facts underlying each crime is without merit. "[T]here is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime" ( People v. Kinch, 237 A.D.2d 830, 831, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 860; see, People v. Smith, 248 A.D.2d 891, 892, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 906). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation ( see, People v. Kirkman, 269 A.D.2d 808). Finally, the sentence of concurrent terms of incarceration of 5 to 10 years for each burglary count is neither unduly harsh nor severe, notwithstanding that two codefendants, 15 and 17 years old at the time of the crimes, received lesser sentences.