Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Dwyer, Jr., J.), entered October 14, 1986, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crimes of kidnapping in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, without a hearing.
Defendant was convicted of the crimes of kidnapping in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in 1977. In support of his appeal therefrom to this court (66 AD2d 963, 964), his assigned counsel submitted a brief which alleged that the evidence at trial was legally
Defendant subsequently filed a pro se notice of motion in County Court on April 12, 1986 seeking an order pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h) to set aside his conviction due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at both the trial and the appeal. County Court denied the motion on the ground that this court had already decided the issue. An application for permission to appeal to this court was also denied by order dated June 26, 1986.
Defendant next moved to relitigate the issue of ineffective appellate counsel in County Court. The People opposed the motion and defendant then moved for summary judgment. County Court, in denying summary judgment, held that it could not pass on such issue because it did not assign the counsel, did not see the appellate briefs and did not hear the arguments on appeal. This court then granted motions by defendant for permission to appeal and to proceed as a poor person.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeals in People v Bachert (69 NY2d 593, revg 121 AD2d 802) held that a CPL 440.10 motion is an inappropriate method for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and that the proper vehicle to raise such a claim is a motion for a writ of error coram nobis made directly to the appellate court in which the appeal was heard. As a result, we treat defendant’s current pro se CPL 440.10 motion as a motion for such coram nobis relief and consider it on the merits (see, People v Bachert, 133 AD2d 482 [decided herewith]). After considering this issue on its merits, we conclude that reversal on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not warranted and the motion is denied.
It is clear that defendant has a right to appellate counsel (People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606, 610) and appellate counsel must provide defendant the " 'full consideration and resolution of the matter’ of 'an active advocate in behalf of his client’ ” (id., quoting Anders v California, 386 US 738, 743-
Appeal converted into a motion for a writ of error coram nobis and motion denied, without costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.