Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), rendered February 1, 2007, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Neil E. Ross, J.), rendered February 1, 2007, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the adequacy of his plea allocution, which does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement, is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his guilty plea or seek to vacate his judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. There is no "uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants," only that it be demonstrated that the plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353 [1967], cert denied sub nom Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067 [1969]; see also People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]), which is shown by a review of the record herein.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: February 25, 2010