Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contentions that his statements to the police and certain physical evidence should have been suppressed. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the statements were voluntary and were not otherwise obtained in violation of the defendant's rights (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Diaz, 161 A.D.2d 789; People v. Starks, 139 A.D.2d 681). Moreover, the record supports the hearing court's determination that the seizure of the physical evidence from the defendant's residence was proper.
The defendant's challenge to the factual adequacy of his plea allocution has not been preserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he neither sought to withdraw his plea before sentencing, nor moved to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Gonzalez, 121 A.D.2d 562). In any event, were we to review his contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we would find it to be without merit. Indeed, it is well settled that no mandatory uniform catechism of pleading is required (see, People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909; People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067). The statements of the defendant at the plea proceedings, where he was represented by two Legal Aid Society attorneys, demonstrate that his plea was adequate and entered knowingly and voluntarily. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.