PER CURIAM.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), rendered February 16, 2011, affirmed.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find the record sufficient to establish defendant's understanding and waiver of his Boykin rights (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 [1969];People v. Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 366 [2013] ), and of his entry of an otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea. In full satisfaction of multiple misdemeanor charges-including child endangerment and third-degree assault-stemming from a November 2010 altercation with his then wife, defendant pleaded guilty in February 2011 to a single count of disorderly conduct, a violation, in return for a negotiated sentence of a conditional discharge. In defendant's presence, defense counsel acknowledged that defendant agreed to waive “formal allocution,” and defendant personally confirmed, in response to the court's questioning, that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and understood that he was giving up his right to a trial. A plea of guilty “will not be invalidated solely because the Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea' “ (People v. Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365, quoting People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16, [1983] ). This is particularly so where, as here, “the record shows that defendant had ample opportunity to review his options in consultation with counsel” (People v. Perez, 116 AD3d 511, –––– [2014] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.