Opinion
June 22, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kriendler, J., Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to proceed pro se, as he was equivocal in asserting his right to so proceed (see, People v Smith, 68 N.Y.2d 737, cert denied ___ US ___, 107 S Ct 444; People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10). Moreover, the assigned counsel provided the defendant with effective representation (see, People v Been, 68 N.Y.2d 941; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
Although a defendant may waive his presence at the trial (see, People v Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, cert denied 423 U.S. 999), the People, nevertheless, have "the right to require his presence for the purpose of identification by its witnesses" (People v Winship, 309 N.Y. 311, 313-314). Thus, the refusal of the trial court to grant the defendant's motion to remain outside the courtroom did not constitute an abuse of discretion or a denial of his statutory or constitutional rights (see, People v Winship, supra).
The court correctly determined that the prosecutor did not knowingly introduce perjured testimony at the trial, and thus properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se brief, are without merit. Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.