Prior to sentencing, defendant moved, both pro se and through appointed counsel, to withdraw his plea of guilty. Denying the motions without a hearing, County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea bargain. In our view, County Court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying defendant's motions for withdrawal of his plea of guilty ( see, CPL 220.60; see also, People v Tillinghast, 208 AD2d 1030, lv denied 84 NY2d 1016; People v Burke, 197 AD2d 731). A review of the plea allocution reveals that defendant was fully informed both of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and the consequences of entering such a plea ( see, People v Fitzgerald, 210 AD2d 740, 740-741). Defendant made no protestation of innocence during the plea colloquy and indicated that he had no questions about the consequences of his guilty plea. Furthermore, defendant received an advantageous plea ( see, People v Brown, 235 AD2d 563) and the record is devoid of any evidence casting doubt on defense counsel's effectiveness ( see, People v Torres, 227 AD2d 716, 717, lv denied 88 NY2d 995; People v Harrison, 212 AD2d 908, lv denied 85 NY2d 973). Under these circumstances, defendant's conclusory claims of innocence, coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel, without basis in the record, presented County Court with an issue of credibility which it could properly resolve against him ( see, People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55; People v Lynch, 156 AD2d 884, 885, lv denied 75 NY2d 921).
We disagree. Although defendant complained that he was "pushed into" pleading guilty by his attorney, our review of the record reveals that defendant indicated to County Court that he was satisfied with his attorney's services and that he had sufficiently discussed the implications of the plea with him ( see, People v Ross, 216 A.D.2d 605, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 801). Further, the transcript of the plea allocution establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty and waived his right to appeal after a thorough inquiry by County Court, during the course of which defendant admitted his guilt to the elements of the charged crime of robbery in the first degree ( see, People v Fitzgerald, 210 A.D.2d 740). Finally, to the extent that any of defendant's remaining arguments may be preserved for appellate review, we find them to be lacking in merit.