People v. Taylor

101 A.D.3d 1235, 955 N.Y.2d 446

Opinion

Malone Jr., J.

We affirm. For preservation purposes, defendant’s pro se claim at sentencing that his counsel was ineffective was tantamount to a motion to vacate his plea; therefore, it survives his appeal waiver and is properly preserved for our review (see People v Walley, 63 AD3d 1284, 1285 n [2009]; cf. People v Jerome, 98 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2012]; People v Moore, 97 AD3d 850, 851 [2012]). Nonetheless, defendant’s claim that his counsel did not adequately investigate the circumstances of his case is not supported in this record and is a claim more appropriately pursued by way of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Feliz, 51 AD3d 1278, 1279 [2008]; see also People v Shiels, 93 AD3d 992, 993 [2012]; People v Carpenter, 93 AD3d 950, 952 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 863 [2012]).

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.