Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered December 8, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
The January 2004 execution of a search warrant by police at
Initially, we note that defendant expressly waived his right to appeal from the denial of his suppression motion (see People v Booth, 23 AD3d 766, 767 [2005]). Such waiver came in exchange for a sentencing promise by County Court (compare People v Coles, 13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]), and otherwise appears to have been knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (see generally People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 7-11 [1989]). Nonetheless, inasmuch as defendant failed to allege facts from which the court could conclude that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises subject to the warrant, we cannot conclude that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress (see CPL 710.60; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 358-359 [1989]; People v Prodromidis, 276 AD2d 912, 912 [2000]; see also People v Geraghty, 212 AD2d 358 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 938 [1995]).
As to defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence, we likewise note that such claim was encompassed within his knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of appeal (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 826 [1998]). Moreover, although this Court “may be divested of its unique interest-of-justice jurisdiction only by constitutional amendment” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; see People v Seaberg, supra at 9; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 520 [1983]), defendant, as a result of his valid appeal waiver, has relinquished his right to request that we exercise such authority (see People v Lopez, supra at 255).
Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.