Opinion
February 3, 1995
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his absence from the Sandoval hearing conducted during his first trial deprived him of the right to be present at a material stage of trial. The record shows that defendant was not present during his first trial's Sandoval hearing. Defendant's conviction following that trial was reversed on other grounds (People v. Henderson, 162 A.D.2d 1038). Upon retrial, County Court informed counsel that all of its rulings at the first trial would apply at the second trial. Because no objection was made to the court's failure to conduct a de novo Sandoval hearing, any error in that regard has not been preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Garcia, 195 A.D.2d 1023, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 895).
Defendant also contends that the court erred in refusing his request to apply the court's Sandoval ruling to the People's cross-examination of a defense witness. Although the court should have granted that request (see, People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646), we conclude that defendant suffered no prejudice because the prosecutor never cross-examined that witness regarding defendant's prior conviction (see generally, People v. Garcia, 179 A.D.2d 1047, 1049). In any event, that error is harmless because the evidence against defendant is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that the error affected the verdict (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242; People v. Julien, 182 A.D.2d 642, 643, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 833).