Defendant, who pleaded guilty, waived appellate review of his speedy trial claim (People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009). Defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not move to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds is also unpreserved since defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea on these grounds (People v. Lu Yang Tong, 238 A.D.2d 607; People v. Sierre, 173 A.D.2d 211, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 974). In any event, since defendant's claim of ineffective assistance was never explored in the context of a CPL 440.10 motion, it cannot be determined on the present record whether defense counsel decided against making a speedy trial motion for strategic purposes, such as to obtain, or avoid risking the loss of a favorable plea bargain (People v. Garcia, 236 A.D.2d 268; see also, People v. Strempack, 71 N.Y.2d 1015; People v. Gladstone, 239 A.D.2d 206). The record fails to support defendant's claim that a speedy trial motion would have been so "patently meritorious" as to exclude any strategic explanation for failure to make such motion. On the present record, since defendant obtained a favorable plea bargain, "it cannot be concluded that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel." (235 A.D.2d supra, at 269; see also, People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.