Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea on the ground that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83). Having failed to move to withdraw his plea on that basis, the defendant waived his right to review thereof (see, CPL 470.05; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, the defendant unequivocally admitted his participation in the crimes charged and provided a full factual recitation thereof. In his withdrawal motion, he made a generalized assertion of innocence and claimed he was not fully advised of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. The defendant's belated, unsubstantiated claim of innocence, which directly contradicts his plea allocution, did not entitle him to withdraw his plea (see, People v Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57; People v Tuttle, 141 A.D.2d 584; People v Matta, 103 A.D.2d 756). Moreover, the record establishes that the defendant, while represented by counsel, knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and pleaded guilty (People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). Under the circumstances, the denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.