In People v. Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 525 N.E.2d 5, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465 (1988), the Court of Appeals held that when the trial court in taking a plea is "confronted with statements casting significant doubt on defendant's guilt," it must conduct further inquiry as to whether plea was knowing and voluntary, whether he possessed the requisite criminal intent and whether there was any possibility of a justification defense. (People v. Lopez, supra, 71 NY2d at 667-668). The Court of Appeals reiterated the rule that, in order to preserve a challenge to the adequacy of a plea allocution for appellate review, a defendant must either move to withdraw his plea prior to sentence, pursuant to CPL 220.60, or move to vacate the judgment in the lower court, pursuant to CPL 440.10. The Court also noted, however, that in "that rare case ... where the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea ... the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant's guilty plea is knowing and voluntary" (Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666). "Where the court fails in this duty and accepts the plea without further inquiry, the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal" (id.).