Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion to withdraw his pleas (see, People v Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520; People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926; People v Taveras, 169 A.D.2d 743).
We further conclude that since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel appears to rest on matters dehors the record, the proper way to have raised the claim was by a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 and not by direct appeal.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.