People v. BarryPeople v. Barry
Defendant has not established that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies to his Peque claim (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 182-183 [2013], cert denied 574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]). Defendant was informed of his potential deportation by a notice of immigration consequences that the People served upon him, in the presence of his attorney and a suitable interpreter, several months before the guilty plea (see e.g. People v Diakite, 135 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1131 [2016]), giving defendant the opportunity to raise the issue, and rendering his claim unpreserved. We decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. In any event, we find it highly unlikely, given the terms