Opinion
July 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to be present at side-bar conferences during the voir dire, we find that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right ( see, People v. Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, 349-350, cert denied 423 U.S. 999; People v. Underwood, 201 A.D.2d 597). The defendant, who was present during the discussions between the court and his counsel regarding side-bar procedures and courtroom security, was apprised of his right to be present and the consequences of his waiver. The defendant's awareness of this right was further established when the court ascertained that the defendant was indeed waiving this right. That the defendant waived his right because he did not favor being accompanied by two court officers whenever he was to approach the bench does not mean that he did not have a choice in exercising his right to be present ( see, People v. Moton, 215 A.D.2d 781; People v. Pondexter, 215 A.D.2d 409; People v. Gloster, 175 A.D.2d 258, 260).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.25; People v. Johnson, 154 A.D.2d 618, 619).
In light of the determination on the appeal from the judgment, there is no basis for vacatur of the defendant's admission that he violated a condition of the probation previously imposed under Indictment No. 7771/90 ( cf., People v. Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432). Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.