Opinion
April 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As the defendant concedes, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that he knowingly possessed five hundred milligrams or more of cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508; cf., People v Hill, 85 N.Y.2d 256). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's knowledge of the weight of the cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Ryan, 82 N.Y.2d 497, 505-506). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Prior to jury selection the defendant signed a document which stated that he waived his "right to be present at any sidebar conference during which prospective jurors are questioned concerning their qualifications to serve as jurors". Accordingly, the defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to be present during a sidebar conference with prospective jurors is without merit (see, People v Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519, 525).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.