Opinion
May 2, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in trying the defendant in absentia. The record reveals that the defendant was, on numerous occasions, duly informed of his right to be present at trial and of the consequences of failing to appear (see, People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 140). On the day the trial was to begin, the defendant appeared in court, but he absconded shortly thereafter, at which time the court adjourned the proceedings for five days and issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Reasonable efforts to locate the defendant were unsuccessful until he was arrested and incarcerated two days before the verdict was delivered. At the time of his subsequent arrest, the defendant failed to inform the appropriate authorities of his pending trial, and he failed to contact his attorney. Under the foregoing circumstances, we find that the defendant waived his right to be present at the trial (see, People v. Parker, supra), and, in any event, he forfeited that right by absconding shortly before the trial commenced (see, People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 444; People v. Nance, 175 A.D.2d 185; see also, People v. Franco, 191 A.D.2d 707, 708; People v Jones, 163 A.D.2d 203, 204-205; cf., People v. Amato, 172 A.D.2d 545; People v. Edmonds, 151 A.D.2d 829, 830-831).
The defendant's contention with respect to the admission into evidence of the complainant's prior testimony (see, CPL 660.10, 660.20 Crim. Proc.) is without merit (see, CPL 670.10; People v Tumerman, 133 A.D.2d 714, 715, cert denied 485 U.S. 969; People v Carracedo, 147 Misc.2d 1093, 1095; see also, People v. Corley, 77 A.D.2d 835; cf., People v. Steeps, 52 A.D.2d 887).
The defendant's remaining contentions are also without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.