Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because the Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether she was aware that she possessed a potential justification defense. Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no indication in the record that justification could have been a viable defense. Thus, the Supreme Court was not required to make a further inquiry ( see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 668; People v. Brewley, 211 A.D.2d 805; People v. Carter, 187 A.D.2d 666; People v. Rivera, 180 A.D.2d 767).
Because the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that she would receive the sentence actually imposed, she now has no basis to complain that the sentence was excessive ( see, People v. Williams, 189 A.D.2d 910; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.