tending to substantiate them (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [b]); an allegation of fact essential to support the motion is either contradicted by a court record or other official document; or, an allegation of fact made solely by the defendant is unsupported by any other affidavit or evidence, and there is no reasonable possibility that such allegation is true (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [d] [i], [ii]). The People maintain that defendant's claim should be denied because his moving papers do not contain sufficient allegations tending to substantiate them (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [b], [d]). Indeed, the defendant neglected to provide an affidavit from his alleged ineffective attorneys. Statutorily, the People are correct. Failure to provide an affidavit from counsel warrants summary denial of defendant's motion because absent any other evidence that defense counsel failed to inform him of potential deportation consequences, he is unable to "substantiate all the essential facts" (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [b]; People v Morales, 58 NY2d 1008 [1983], citing People v Scott, 10 NY2d 380 [1961] [failure to supply affidavit from trial or plea counsel who is living and available warranted summary denial of motion collaterally attacking conviction based on attorney's alleged conduct]; People v Stewart, 295 AD2d 249, 250 [1st Dept 2002] [summary denial was appropriate where "defendant's papers were deficient in that they lacked an affirmation from trial counsel explaining his strategic decisions, or any explanation for the absence of such an affirmation"]; see People v Ozuna, 7 NY3d 913, 915 [2006] [defendant "neither submitted an affidavit from his father to show that he would have corroborated his son's testimony, nor explained his failure to do]). The absence of an attorney's affidavit, however, by itself, is not dispositive (see Morales, 58 NY2d 1008).

tending to substantiate them (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [b]); an allegation of fact essential to support the motion is either contradicted by a court record or other official document; or, an allegation of fact made solely by the defendant is unsupported by any other affidavit or evidence, and there is no reasonable possibility that such allegation is true (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [d] [i], [ii]). The People maintain that defendant's claim should be denied because his moving papers do not contain sufficient allegations tending to substantiate them (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [b], [d]). Indeed, the defendant neglected to provide an affidavit from his alleged ineffective attorneys. Statutorily, the People are correct. Failure to provide an affidavit from counsel warrants summary denial of defendant's motion because absent any other evidence that defense counsel failed to inform him of potential deportation consequences, he is unable to "substantiate all the essential facts" (see CPL § 440.30 [4] [b]; People v Morales, 58 NY2d 1008 [1983], citing People v Scott, 10 NY2d 380 [1961] [failure to supply affidavit from trial or plea counsel who is living and available warranted summary denial of motion collaterally attacking conviction based on attorney's alleged conduct]; People v Stewart, 295 AD2d 249, 250 [1st Dept 2002] [summary denial was appropriate where "defendant's papers were deficient in that they lacked an affirmation from trial counsel explaining his strategic decisions, or any explanation for the absence of such an affirmation"]; see People v Ozuna, 7 NY3d 913, 915 [2006] [defendant "neither submitted an affidavit from his father to show that he would have corroborated his son's testimony, nor explained his failure to do]). The absence of an attorney's affidavit, however, by itself, is not dispositive (see Morales, 58 NY2d 1008).

g or tending to substantiate them (see CPL § 440.30 [4 ][b] ); an allegation of fact essential to support the motion is either contradicted by a court record or other official document; or, an allegation of fact made solely by the defendant is unsupported by any other affidavit or evidence, and there is no reasonable possibility that such allegation is true (see CPL § 440.30[4][d][i], [ii] ).The People maintain that defendant's claim should be denied because his moving papers do not contain sufficient allegations tending to substantiate them (see CPL § 440.30[4][b], [d] ). Indeed, the defendant neglected to provide an affidavit from his alleged ineffective attorneys. Statutorily, the People are correct. Failure to provide an affidavit from counsel warrants summary denial of defendant's motion because absent any other evidence that defense counsel failed to inform him of potential deportation consequences, he is unable to “substantiate all the essential facts” (see CPL § 440.30[4][b] ; People v. Morales, 58 N.Y.2d 1008 [1983], citing People v. Scott, 10 N.Y.2d 380 [1961] [failure to supply affidavit from trial or plea counsel who is living and available warranted summary denial of motion collaterally attacking conviction based on attorney's alleged conduct]; People v. Stewart, 295 A.D.2d 249, 250 [1st Dept 2002] [summary denial was appropriate where “defendant's papers were deficient in that they lacked an affirmation from trial counsel explaining his strategic decisions, or any explanation for the absence of such an affirmation”]; see People v. Ozuna, 7 NY3d 913, 915 [2006] [defendant “neither submitted an affidavit from his father to show that he would have corroborated his son's testimony, nor explained his failure to do] ).The absence of an attorney's affidavit, however, by itself, is not dispositive (see Morales, 58 N.Y.2d 1008 ).