Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea without inquiring further as to whether he was knowingly waiving his potential justification defense. However, having failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty, the defendant has failed to preserve this claim for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, the record demonstrates that both the court and the defense counsel inquired as to whether the defendant understood that by pleading guilty he waived his right to raise a justification defense. The defendant acknowledged that he understood and, thereafter, he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of that defense (see, People v. McZorn, 121 A.D.2d 473, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 771; cf., People v. Quiles, 72 A.D.2d 610). The record further amply demonstrates that the court conducted a detailed plea allocution which fully satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9).
We also find that the defendant's arguments with respect to those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress his inculpatory statements to law enforcement officials and certain identification testimony have been waived by his guilty plea because the defendant specifically withdrew his motion and pleaded guilty prior to a judicial resolution of his suppression claims (see, People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 688; People v Plummer, 122 A.D.2d 285, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 916; People v Pescatore, 102 A.D.2d 834). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.