The court was not obligated, sua sponte, to order a psychiatric examination of defendant since there was no reasonable ground to believe that he was unable to understand the proceedings or to assist in his defense ( see Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375; People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, cert denied 528 U.S. 834; People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878). When defendant moved to withdraw his plea and raised, among other things, his mental condition, the court conducted an extensive inquiry of defendant ( see People v. Bangert, 22 N.Y.2d 799) to determine whether his purported mental impairment affected the voluntariness of his plea. The record supports the court's denial of the motion since, during the plea colloquy, defendant, who had pleaded guilty on several prior occasions, was rational and coherent, and unequivocally assured the court that he fully comprehended the meaning of his plea and that he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Although, in his plea withdrawal motion, defendant maintained that he had not taken his psychiatric medication the night before he pleaded guilty, the court's firsthand assessment of defendant's lucidity at the time of the plea established the plea's voluntariness ( see People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482; People v. Rodriguez, 302 A.D.2d 317, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 657).
In denying the plea withdrawal motion, the court accorded defendant a full opportunity to be heard and properly rejected his conclusory and unfounded claim that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty. There was no conflict of interest requiring assignment of new counsel because defendant's attorney did not make any statements that were materially adverse to his client's position ( see Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348-350; People v. Benitez, 290 A.D.2d 363, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 673).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.