Opinion
March 12, 1993
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that defendant's absence during a pre-trial Sandoval hearing (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) warrants reversal (see, People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656). Because we conclude that subsequent proceedings held on the record in defendant's presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing, reversal is not required (see, People v. Smith, 186 A.D.2d 976; see also, People v. Berger, 188 A.D.2d 1073; cf., People v. Dean, 188 A.D.2d 1082; People v. Eady, 185 A.D.2d 678, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 929).
The rule enunciated in People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247, rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 759) is to be applied prospectively and is, therefore, not applicable to the case at bar (see, People v Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519). The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive.