PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant does not contend that either his assigned counsel or the Spanish interpreter were in any way incompetent or deficient. His argument, as expressed in his motion made before the Supreme Court, that he was entitled to a Spanish speaking attorney, was forfeited by his guilty plea (see, People v Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, affd 53 N.Y.2d 338). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.