Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete and detailed plea allocution with the assistance of competent counsel, after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of his plea (see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v James, 159 A.D.2d 723, 724-725; People v Brownlee, 158 A.D.2d 610; People v Long, 157 A.D.2d 504; see also, People v Seger, 171 A.D.2d 892; People v O'Keefe, 170 A.D.2d 1020). Further, when the defendant made his subsequent application to withdraw his guilty plea, the court fully reviewed the motion papers and properly concluded that none of the contentions made warranted vacatur of the plea (see, People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927; People v Seger, supra; People v James, supra; People v Duff, 158 A.D.2d 711).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Corbin, 175 A.D.2d 171; People v Duff, supra; People v Torres, 164 A.D.2d 923; People v Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.