MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the pro se motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea ( see CPL 220.60; People v. Franco, 145 A.D.2d 837). "The record establishes that a favorable and voluntary plea was entered after a thorough allocution" ( People v. Rivera, 258 A.D.2d 426, 426, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1005; see People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524-526), and the court "personally observed defendant's participation in extensive plea negotiations, as well as defendant's demeanor and attitude, both at the time the plea was entered and thereafter" ( People v. Aquino, 237 A.D.2d 203, 204; see also People v. Hudson, 237 A.D.2d 759, 760, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 1012). We further conclude that defense counsel's statements in response to the pro se motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea did not deny defendant effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel merely described her pre-plea discussion with defendant concerning sentencing parameters and did not thereby become a witness against defendant ( see People v. Cross, 262 A.D.2d 223, 224, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 902; see also People v. Viscomi, 286 A.D.2d 886, 886, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 763). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.