Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The defendant argues that he pleaded guilty to the instant burglary charges because he was informed that the prosecution possessed fingerprint evidence linking him to one of the burglaries and when he was later informed that no such fingerprint evidence existed, he was entitled to withdraw his guilty pleas. However, it is well settled that a defendant is not entitled to withdraw his guilty pleas merely because he discovers that he misapprehended the quality of the People's case (see, Brady v United States, 397 U.S. 742; People v Jones, 44 N.Y.2d 76, cert denied 439 U.S. 846; People v Walker, 152 A.D.2d 644; People v Grady, 110 A.D.2d 780; People v Boyce, 107 A.D.2d 754). In any event, the record reveals that the prosecution was in fact in possession of latent fingerprints recovered from the roof of the building to which the defendant allegedly gained entry via a roof door. Accordingly, the court did not improvidently deny the defendant's application.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.