People v. McVayPeople v. McVay
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Dazzo, 92 AD3d 796 [2012]; People v Caruso, 88 AD3d 809 [2011]). “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” (People v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010], quoting People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Smith, 54 AD3d 879 [2008]).
Here, the record supports the County Court’s determination that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; see also People v Baker, 104 AD3d 783 [2013]). The defendant’s postplea assertion that he pleaded guilty “because of duress” is belied by his statements under oath at his plea
Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.