At the instant hearing, however, defendant gave contradictory testimony with respect to his reasons for failing to inform the court of the alleged coercion during the plea colloquy. Based on the record before us, we perceive no reason to disturb the court's denial of defendant's motion ( see People v. Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, 888, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659).

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty ( see, People v Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, 887-888, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659). "The record establishes that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and understandingly pleaded guilty to a reduced charge despite his claim of innocence"; ( People v. Johnson, 154 A.D.2d 395, 396, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 949). In moving to withdraw the plea, defendant claimed that he had not been aware of "all the particulars" about the case.

We also reject defendant's claim that County Court erred in its denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is "addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent abuse, that court's determination should not be disturbed" ( People v. Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, 888, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659; see, CPL 220.60; People v. Ross, 182 A.D.2d 1022, 1024, lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 934).

The record fails to support defendant's argument that personal pressures and anxiety associated with the infant's illness overcame his will and rendered his plea defective. An application to withdraw a prior guilty plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent abuse, not found here, the determination of that court should not be disturbed (CPL 220.60; see, People v. Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, 888, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659; People v. Brockway, 88 A.D.2d 1039, 1040). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in County Court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524-525; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927).

, People v. Martin, 168 A.D.2d 794). The minutes of the plea reveal that it was knowingly and voluntarily made and defendant admitted during the allocution the necessary elements of the charged crime (see, People v. Morris, 107 A.D.2d 973). Furthermore, at sentencing County Court expressed its concern over the statements made in the letter and at three separate points in the proceeding informed defendant that he could request new counsel and seek to vacate his plea, to which defendant repeatedly replied in the negative. Insofar as the court gave defendant ample opportunity to substantiate his claims, the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing was not improper (see, People v. Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659). Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit. Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur.

After another adjournment for further discussions with his attorney in this regard, defendant still acknowledged to the court that he wanted to plead guilty, which he did during a complete and thorough plea allocution. He therefore knowingly waived this possible defense (see, People v Franco, 145 A.D.2d 837, 838). In addition, had defendant gone to trial a charge of justification would not have been warranted here (see, People v Diaz, 145 A.D.2d 833, 834, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1014). Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion (see, People v Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, 888, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659). Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Appeal from the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The record establishes that the court conducted the required inquiry when it accepted defendant's plea to insure that the elements of the crime were established and that the plea was knowing and voluntary (see, People v Kelsch, 96 A.D.2d 677). Furthermore, although given the opportunity to do so, defendant failed to set forth any facts to support his motion (see, People v Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659). Under these circumstances, there was also no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion by the court without it first conducting an evidentiary hearing (see, supra). Finally, we find that defendant was provided with effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Bell, 141 A.D.2d 749) and there was no abuse of discretion by the court in imposing the prison sentence of 8 1/3 years to life.

Defendant presented no other specific evidence to support his motion. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v. Franco, 145 A.D.2d 837; People v. Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, 887-888, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 659). The record also establishes that the court gave defendant ample opportunity to set forth and substantiate his claims in support of his motion (see, People v. Zuk, supra, at 888). Finally, defendant has not shown that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in People v. Baldi ( 54 N.Y.2d 137).

Appeal from the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.). There was no abuse of discretion in County Court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A complete and thorough plea allocution was made and no evidence was presented other than defendant's self-serving assertions to support his motion (see, People v. Franco, 145 A.D.2d 837; People v. Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 659). Nor was it improper for the court not to have conducted a full evidentiary hearing. The record establishes that the court gave defendant ample opportunity to set forth and substantiate his claims before making its decision (see, supra).

The application is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion (CPL 220.60; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520; People v. Zuk, 130 A.D.2d 886, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 659). Here, defense counsel informed the court that defendant wished to withdraw his plea because defendant "now believes that, should this matter proceed to trial, [an] acquittal would be likely.