Ordered that the order is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied, without a hearing, those branches of his motion which were to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground that the People did not disclose various statements made by witnesses ( see People v. Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866; Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to seek review of any alleged Rosario or Brady violation ( see People v. Land, 304 AD2d 774; People v. Knickerbocker, 230 AD2d 753; People v. Thompson, 174 AD2d 702, 704). We reject the defendant's contention that, since he did not waive his right to appeal, the Brady claim is subject to review ( cf. People v. Mack, 53 NY2d 803, 806; People v. Land, supra). We also reject the defendant's contention that he did not forfeit his Brady claim because he entered into a Serrano/Alford plea and thus did not admit guilt ( cf. People v. Green, 75 NY2d 902, 904-905, cert denied 498 US 860; People v. Thompson, supra at 704).
The County Court properly rejected the defendant's claims relating to alleged newly-discovered evidence. CPL 440.10 (1) (g) is limited, by its very terms, to evidence discovered "since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial." The defendant pleaded guilty, so the statute does not apply here ( see People v. Sides, 242 AD2d 750, 751).