Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On September 22, 1986 the defendant appeared in the Supreme Court, Kings County, and pleaded guilty to the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. The defendant's attorney stated, with the concurrence of the Assistant District Attorney, that the plea was not intended to constitute a waiver of the defendant's right to appellate review of a prior order of the Supreme Court, which had vacated a previously entered plea of guilty under the same indictment. The court then imposed a prison sentence which is lengthier than that which had been agreed to in connection with the previous plea.
The defendant's subsequent plea of guilty, upon which the judgment appealed from is based, constituted a forfeiture of his right to appellate review of the earlier order of the Supreme Court which vacated his prior guilty plea (see, People v Guerrero, 140 A.D.2d 456). Furthermore, the defendant's attempt to preserve the right to appellate review of this issue is of no effect (see, People v O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009, affg 84 A.D.2d 567; People v Howe, 56 N.Y.2d 622). If the defendant wishes to withdraw his subsequent plea of guilty on the basis that it was induced by a mistaken belief that he had preserved his right to appellate review of this issue, the proper procedure is by way of postjudgment motion (see, People v O'Brien, supra; People v Montanus, 90 A.D.2d 992). We do not choose to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction in the particular circumstances of this case (cf., People v Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, 326, affd 53 N.Y.2d 338). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.