The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and in denying counsel's request to be relieved, since the allegations in defendant's papers were wholly conclusory ( People v. Martinez, 289 A.D.2d 70, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 757). Indeed, the court had no reason to believe that the allegedly coercive conduct amounted to anything more than sound advice to accept the favorable plea offer ( see United States v. Davis, 239 F.3d 283, 286-287). Furthermore, the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. Under these circumstances, there was no conflict of interest requiring assignment of new counsel ( see Hines v. Miller, 318 F.3d 157, 162-164, cert denied US, 123 S Ct 2089).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.