Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Ladelokun, 192 A.D.2d 723; People v Pettway, 140 A.D.2d 721, 722). Although the defendant alleged in his motion papers that he was on medication at the time of the plea proceeding, the record reveals that the defendant was lucid, rational, and unequivocal in assuring the court on several occasions that he fully comprehended the meaning of the plea proceeding (see generally, People v Seger, 171 A.D.2d 892, 893). Moreover, the court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's application to withdraw his plea since the defendant was afforded an ample opportunity to present evidence of his allegations (see, People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927; People v Cannon, 150 A.D.2d 383, 384). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.