Opinion
June 5, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was denied the right to be present during numerous sidebar discussions with prospective jurors (see, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247), since the record demonstrates that the defendant "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" waived that right. Prior to the commencement of the voir dire, the defense counsel, with the defendant present, told the court that the defendant waived his right to be present at sidebar discussions with prospective jurors (see, People v. Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519; People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136; People v. Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, cert denied 423 U.S. 999; People v. Perez, 196 A.D.2d 781; People v. Spruill, 212 A.D.2d 381). Furthermore, although the defense counsel raised two Batson challenges during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79), he failed to "articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection was raised and discussed" (People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 268), thereby failing to establish a prima facie "pattern of purposeful exclusion" (People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 325; Batson v Kentucky, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.