Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because he was not informed that he would be subject to a mandatory period of post-release supervision is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move either to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on that basis ( see CPL 440.10; People v. Redcross, 13 AD3d 559, 560; People v. Richards, 6 AD3d 464; People v. Wronka, 6 AD3d 735), and we decline to review the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. We are unpersuaded by the defendant's contention that People v. Catu ( 4 NY3d 242) requires a different result ( see People v. Alexander, 21 AD3d 1223, lv denied 5 NY3d 881; cf. People v. Bracey, 24 AD3d 363).
Furthermore, the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248; People v. Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v. Redcross, supra; People v. Wronka, supra at 736).
The defendant's remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.