Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael J. Yavinsky, J. on omnibus motion; Matthew A. Sciarrino, J. at plea and sentence), rendered June 1, 2011, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while impaired by drugs.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Michael J. Yavinsky, J. on omnibus motion; Matthew A. Sciarrino, J. at plea and sentence), rendered June 1, 2011, affirmed.

Defendant's unpreserved challenge to the validity of his guilty plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; see also People v Panek, 104 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1018 [2013]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, even assuming that defendant is correct in arguing that the plea allocution was insufficient since the court did not adequately advise him of the conditional discharge component of the sentence, the proper remedy would be to vacate the plea agreement (see People v Hill, 9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007], cert denied 553 US 1048 [2008]; People v Panek, 104 AD3d at 1202) and remand the matter for further proceedings on the underlying driving while impaired and related charges (see generally People v Extale, 18 NY3d 690, 696 [2012]; cf. People v Burwell, 53 NY2d 849, 851 [1981]), potential relief which defendant expressly rejects in his brief on appeal.

We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument, essentially for the reasons stated by Criminal Court in its written decision denying defendant's dismissal motion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: October 28, 2013