Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court, although not required to, thoroughly advised defendant of the rights he was waiving ( see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238; People v. Garcia, 303 A.D.2d 258, 755 N.Y.S.2d 839). Defendant was not entitled to be warned of the impact of his conviction upon sentences he might receive for future crimes ( People v. Silvers, 163 A.D.2d 71, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 865).
The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404; People v. Garcia, supra).
Since defendant's prison sentence was the minimum permitted by law, discretionary review is foreclosed (CPL 470.20). We perceive no basis for reducing the term of defendant's post-release supervision.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.