Crimes - Appeal - Valid Waiver of Right to Appeal - Court's Delay in Explaining Appeal Waiver Until after Defendant's Factual Allocution of Crime Did Not Render it Invalid

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Karen Gopee, J.), imposed August 5, 2021, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). Although it would have been better practice for the Supreme Court to discuss with the defendant the waiver of his appellate rights before obtaining an admission of guilt (see People v Downing, 233 AD3d 965, 966 [2024]), the record reflects that the defendant was aware of the People's demand for an appeal waiver before agreeing to plead guilty, as, among other things, the defendant acknowledged that he had discussed the appeal waiver with his attorney. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, under the circumstances presented, the court's delay in explaining the appeal waiver until after the defendant's factual allocution of the crime did not render the appeal waiver invalid (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Downing, 233 AD3d at 966). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 253; People v Florio, 179 AD3d 834, 835 [2020]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Warhit and Ventura, JJ., concur.