Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the County Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The record provides no support for the defendant's conclusory assertion at sentence that his attorney "coerced" him into entering the plea, given his statements during the extensive plea colloquy to the contrary, his representation that he knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea, and his admission that he had committed the crimes to which he admitted guilt (see, People v Long, 157 A.D.2d 504; People v Moore, 156 A.D.2d 395; see also, People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926; People v Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55). The defendant's further contention that the court should have conducted a hearing on his vacatur motion since he admitted to being medicated with anti-depressant drugs is similarly without merit. The defendant unequivocally stated that although he was on medication, he was aware of what was going on and that his faculties were not impaired by the medication (see, People v Ostrander, 136 A.D.2d 760, 761; People v Bangert, 107 A.D.2d 752, 753). We note, moreover, that during the plea colloquy, the defendant was lucid, rational and unequivocal in assuring the court on numerous occasions that he fully comprehended the meaning of the plea proceeding. Since the defendant was afforded an ample opportunity to state the basis of his withdrawal application on the record, the court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing into the defendant's claims of incapacity and coercion (see, People v Tinsley, supra; People v Martin, 157 A.D.2d 674, 675; People v Cannon, 150 A.D.2d 383; People v Barnett, 136 A.D.2d 555). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.