EGAN JR., J.
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Brian Leeds of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ.
Opinion
EGAN JR., J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered July 16, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and assault in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in two separate indictments with multiple crimes. In full satisfaction of those charges, as well as another pending indictment, he pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and assault in the second degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 15 years followed by a period of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's sole contention on appeal, that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because County Court failed to inquire whether defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the plea allocution, is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Galagan, 35 A.D.3d 973, 974, 824 N.Y.S.2d 819 [2006] ; People v. Bevins, 27 A.D.3d 572, 572–573, 811 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2006] ; People v. Cunningham, 23 A.D.3d 754, 755, 803 N.Y.S.2d 788 [2005] ). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered here, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that were inconsistent with his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Banks, 122 A.D.3d 953, 953–954, 994 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2014] ; People v. Waite, 120 A.D.3d 1446, 1447, 994 N.Y.S.2d 201 [2014] ). In any event, the record is devoid of any suggestion that defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of his allocution (see People v. Royster, 40 A.D.3d 885, 886–887, 835 N.Y.S.2d 732 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 881, 842 N.Y.S.2d 793, 874 N.E.2d 760 [2007] ). Accordingly, the judgment will not be disturbed.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ., concur.