Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to five different felonies committed on five separate dates over the course of the year 1983. On appeal he argues that his application for a Wade hearing relative to indictment No. 5518/83 was improperly denied, that all of his allocutions were inadequate as a matter of law, and that his sentences were excessive. The defendant's contentions are without merit.
Under the facts of this case, the defendant's motion did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the court to conduct a Wade hearing (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023).
The defendant's claim that his plea allocutions were insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review in that he failed to move to withdraw his pleas prior to sentencing (CPL 220.60; 470.05 [2]; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Pendergrass, 115 A.D.2d 497). In any event, there was no flaw in the allocutions challenged on this appeal. The defendant himself either related or concurred in all of the underlying facts making out the crimes. He was represented throughout by competent counsel, and was informed of and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights before the sentencing courts. There has been no showing of prejudice (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338; People v. Dixon, 119 A.D.2d 831; People v. Colon, 77 A.D.2d 370).
Finally, the sentences imposed were those promised to the defendant at the time of the pleas. Accordingly, the defendant has no basis to complain that the sentences were excessive (People v. Buitrago, 125 A.D.2d 322; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.