Opinion
May 20, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that his right to be present during the impanelling of the jury was violated because of his absence from the sidebar conferences during which counsel advised the court of their peremptory challenges and made challenges for cause (see, People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.