DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The record is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v. DeSimone, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v. McCaskell, 206 A.D.2d 547; cf. People v. Williams, 258 A.D.2d 544; People v. Rolon, 220 A.D.2d 543).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, after a hearing, his motion to withdraw his plea. The record of the plea allocution demonstrates that the defendant's pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9), and the evidence presented at the hearing failed to substantiate the defendant's claims, inter alia, that he was ill on the day he entered his pleas, that he was innocent, and that his attorney was ineffective (see People v. Johnson, 288 A.D.2d 491; see also People v. Telfair, 299 A.D.2d 429, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603).
The defendant's further contention that his pleas should have been vacated because he was never advised that he would be subject to a period of post-release supervision is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Higgins, 304 A.D.2d 773 [2d Dept, Apr. 21, 2003]; People v. Larweth, 303 A.D.2d 901 [4th Dept, Mar. 21, 2003]; People v. Crump, 302 A.D.2d 901; People v. Velez, 301 A.D.2d 619), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.