PEOPLE v. BEHLIN

Although it is undisputed that the court advised defendant that his sentence would include five years of postrelease supervision ( see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242), defendant claims that the court misinformed him as to the precise consequences of a violation of the conditions of such supervision. Defendant failed to preserve this claim ( see People v Muriqi, 9 AD3d 743, lv denied 3 NY3d 679), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice ( compare People v Bracey, 24 AD3d 363 [interest-of-justice review of Catu error]). Were we to review this claim, we would find that reincarceration for violating the terms of postrelease supervision is a collateral consequence of the plea ( see People v Muriqi, 9 AD3d at 744), and that defendant's decision to plead guilty was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. We further find that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 402-404).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.