It does not appear that the voluntariness of defendant's plea was materially affected by the court's erroneous statement concerning the maximum legal sentence, defendant having acknowledged, after consultation with his attorney and mother, that the plea offer was favorable (see, People v Martinez, 162 A.D.2d 274, 275, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 860). Accordingly, defendant's motion to withdraw the plea was properly denied. Defendant's argument that the court failed to advise him of a possible affirmative defense in the plea allocution is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665) and in any event without merit, since the elements of the crime charged (Penal Law § 160.15) were stated at plea and there is no doubt as to its substantive sufficiency (compare, Ames v New York State Div. of Parole, 772 F.2d 13 [2d Cir 1985], cert denied 475 U.S. 1066).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.