Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, by entering a plea of guilty prior to any ruling on those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements, he has waived the issue of the propriety of the court's subsequent suppression ruling (see, People v Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686; People v Aponte, 180 A.D.2d 910; People v Carty, 173 A.D.2d 900; People v Newman, 165 A.D.2d 745; People v Middleton, 163 A.D.2d 615; cf., People v Lewis, 140 A.D.2d 630).
Having failed to move prior to the imposition of sentence to withdraw his plea, the defendant has not preserved his instant challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, the record reveals that the defendant's plea of guilty was neither improvident nor baseless and was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made (see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.