After his conviction and sentence in this case, the defendant pleaded guilty to unrelated burglary charges under indictment No. 1723/2005. In exchange for a promise that the sentence in that case would run concurrently with the one in this case, the defendant waived his right to appeal in both cases. Our review of the record indicates that the defendant‘s waiver of appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (seePeople v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Accordingly, we do not reach the defendant‘s claim that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support the charges or that the jury‘s verdict was against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Dickerson, 309 AD2d 966 [2003]; People v Korona, 197 AD2d 788 [1993]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.