Opinion
Submitted February 9, 2000.
April 4, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), all rendered February 6, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 952/96, robbery in the third degree under Indictment No. 1226/96, and robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 2463/96, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Howard R. Teichner, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Karen L. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's pro se motions to withdraw his previously-entered pleas of guilty (see, CPL 220.60[3]). The defendant's claims that he was innocent and that he was coerced into pleading guilty are belied by the record (see,People v. Charles, 256 A.D.2d 472 ; People v. Brown, 251 A.D.2d 677; People v. Hernandez, 236 A.D.2d 557 ). His further contention that he did not understand the consequences and nature of his pleas because he was receiving medication for severe depression was first raised in his motion to reargue his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. A motion to reargue does not afford an unsuccessful party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those proffered in the original application (see, People v. Lopez, 235 A.D.2d 496 ; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 567 ). In any event, the defendant's conclusory assertion is belied by the record of the plea allocutions (see, People v. Ochoa, 179 A.D.2d 689 ; People v. Irizzary, 125 A.D.2d 589 ; People v. Bangert, 107 A.D.2d 752 ).
Furthermore, the defendant's application for substitution of counsel on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and conflict of interest was properly denied (see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied, 459 U.S. 1178; People v. Sider, 232 A.D.2d 666 ; People v. Cunningham, 134 A.D.2d 273 ). The defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel did not provide meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 ), especially in view of the favorable pleas he received under the three indictments at issue and the dismissal of a fourth indictment (see, People v. Gillyard, 237 A.D.2d 302; People v. Fiumefreddo, 188 A.D.2d 546, affd 82 N.Y.2d 536 ). Moreover, the defendant's bald assertion that there was a conflict of interest between him and his attorney was insufficient to justify granting his application for substitution of counsel.
O'BRIEN, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.