Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of shooting another man to death after an argument.
Viewing the representation of the defendant's attorney in its entirety, the defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457).
The defendant's contention concerning his exclusion from in camera inquiries of three jurors is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Williams, 181 A.D.2d 845; People v Gamble, 173 A.D.2d 555). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contentions on appeal, an in camera inquiry by the court and counsel into an impaneled juror's continuing fitness to serve is not a material stage of the proceedings and, therefore, the defendant's presence is not required (see, People v Aguilera, 82 N.Y.2d 23; People v Torres, 80 N.Y.2d 944; People v Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449; People v Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1; People v Mardis, 190 A.D.2d 866; People v Christenson, 188 A.D.2d 659; CPL 270.35). In any event, certain portions of the in camera inquiries in this case were repeated in front of the defendant in open court (see, People v Bumbury, 186 A.D.2d 671). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.