Opinion
March 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.).
Defendant's right to be present at all material stages of his trial was not violated as his alleged absence from a mid-trial colloquy between the attorneys and the court, conducted in the jury room, did not impair his ability to defend against the charges (see, People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450; Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97). Defendant had no right to be present during legal argument (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472), and he could offer no material contribution during the questioning of the prosecution witness, the purpose of which was merely to ensure that the witness did not blurt out prejudicial remarks concerning defendant (see, People v. Morales, supra; People v. Ramirez, 192 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1078), and not to test the credibility of the witness (see, People v Lovett, 192 A.D.2d 326, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 722) or to make an evidentiary ruling (compare, People v. Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871).
Defendant's claim that his right to be present at a conference prior to the Sandoval hearing was violated is also without merit since he was provided a full opportunity to participate in the Sandoval ruling when the court subsequently heard argument and ruled on each of the prosecution's requests in his presence (see, People v. Watson, 205 A.D.2d 398, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 834).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.