PEOPLE v. RODDY

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25), grand larceny in the third degree (§ 155.35) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [7]). He contends that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because County Court failed to advise him either at the time of the plea or at sentencing that the bargained-for sentence would be followed by a mandatory period of postrelease supervision ( see § 70.45 [2]). That contention is unpreserved for our review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666).

Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the plea colloquy was insufficient because he was not informed of fundamental rights that he was waiving ( see People v. Davenport, 273 A.D.2d 926) and that his plea allocution failed to establish the essential elements of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty ( see People v. Alicea, 264 A.D.2d 900, 900-901, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 876; see generally People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665). In any event, we conclude that those contentions lack merit.