The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation in connection with his highly advantageous guilty pleas (People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-14; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404). Defendant has not established that his attorney gave him erroneous advice as to the issues that may be raised on appeal following a guilty plea as opposed to a conviction after trial, or that he pleaded guilty as the result of any such advice. In any event, regardless of the procedural posture, we would reject, on the merits, the arguments that defendant wishes to raise concerning a notice prohibiting him from entering the subject premises.
The court properly denied defendant's CPL 440 motion without a hearing, since the motion could be decided on the basis of the record and defendant's submission (see People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799-800).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.