Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that improprieties in the trial court's supplemental jury instructions and the prosecutor's summation combined to deprive him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to object with specificity to the challenged summation remarks and did not move for a mistrial on this ground ( see CPL 470.05; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879; People v Evans, 291 AD2d 569; People v Livigni, 288 AD2d 323). The trial court's response to a jury note seeking supplemental instructions regarding the defendant's statements to the police was meaningful and did not result in any prejudice to the defendant ( see CPL 310.30; People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 248; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302, cert denied 459 US 847; People v Arcarola, 96 AD2d 1081). Moreover, although this Court has disapproved of a prosecutor, in summation, characterizing the defense theory as a "conspiracy" by the police and prosecution witnesses to convict the defendant ( see People v Colonna, 135 AD2d 724; People v Cowan, 111 AD2d 343), the remarks here constituted a fair response to the defense counsel's summation theory of police misconduct ( see People v Mitchell, 114 AD2d 978).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to a determinate prison term of 25 years. In sentencing the defendant, the court did not mention the imposition of any period of post-release supervision. Therefore, the sentence appealed from never included, and does not now include, any period of post-release supervision ( see Hill v United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 US 460; People v Duncan, 42 AD3d 470, lv denied 9 NY3d 961; People v Thompson, 39 AD3d 572; People v Smith, 37 AD3d 499; Earley v Murray, 451 F3d 71, reh denied 462 F3d 147, cert denied sub nom. Burhlre v Earley, 551 US ", 127 S Ct 3014; but see People v Sparber, 34 AD3d 265, lv granted 9 NY3d 882).