Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not entered into knowingly and intelligently because County Court made no attempt to determine if he understood English. Initially, we note that defendant's failure to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to make a postverdict motion to vacate the judgment of conviction precludes appellate review of the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, there is nothing in the record which indicated that defendant was having trouble understanding the proceedings such that an interpreter was required. Instead, the record establishes that defendant understood the significance and effect of his plea and what rights he was waiving and, therefore, the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (see, People v. Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460; People v. Clickner, 128 A.D.2d 917, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 644).
Mahoney, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.