Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Herman Klarsfeld, J.H.O.), rendered November 4, 2010, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Herman Klarsfeld, J.H.O.), rendered November 4, 2010, affirmed.

Defendant's unpreserved challenges to the validity of his guilty plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Defendant's counseled guilty plea to the violation of disorderly conduct — with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a conditional discharge in full satisfaction of the underlying reckless driving charge potentially punishable by a 30-day jail sentence — was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Further, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a factual allocution where, as here, there is no indication that the guilty plea assented to by the defendant in the presence of counsel was improvident or baseless (see People v Fooks, [People v Nixon], 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967]; People v Winbush, 199 AD2d 447, 448 [1993]; People v Tyrell, 37 Misc 2d 16, 17 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 1105 [2012]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's jurisdictional point (see People v Fernandez, 20 NY3d 44 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: September 09, 2013