Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court erred in vacating his prior plea of guilty. That issue was waived, however, by the entry of the subsequent plea of guilty which resulted in the judgment from which the defendant now appeals. In any event, we have reviewed the merits of his claim and find that the record supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that the defendant obtained his prior plea by fraud and, therefore, it correctly vacated that plea and reinstated the indictment (see, Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 N.Y.2d 182; writ granted sub nom. Warren v Montemango, 618 F. Supp. 147, revd sub nom. Lockett v Montemango, 784 F.2d 78, cert denied 479 U.S. 832, 107 S Ct 120).
We have examined the defendant's remaining claim with regard to the excessiveness of his sentence and find it to be without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.