Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robert Kalish, J.), rendered July 30, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant, while represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20) in satisfaction of several misdemeanor charges, and the Criminal Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. On appeal, defendant now contends that his plea was not intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily made, because the court failed to specifically enumerate the rights to which he was entitled.

In general, such claims must be preserved by means of a presentence plea-withdrawal motion (see e.g. People v King, 79 AD3d 907 [2010]). However, under the particular circumstances of this case, where sentence was imposed simultaneously with the plea, it would not be fair to bar defendant from raising the issue on appeal on the ground that he did not preserve the issue (see People v Facey, 30 Misc 3d 138[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50224[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th, & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; People v Robles, 22 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50396[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; see generally People v Louree, 8 NY3d, 541, 546 [2007]). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560 [2009]; People v Luster, 45 AD3d 866, 866-867 [2007]; People v Smith, 22 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50392[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Weston and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 31, 2011