Opinion
May 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that she was denied the right to be present at a material stage of her trial when, in her absence, the court conducted a sidebar discussion with a prospective juror concerning his familiarity with a particular area of Queens where he lived and where it is claimed the crime occurred. The questioning of the juror did not involve any knowledge on his part of any facts of this case, as occurred in People v. Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386), but rather dealt with his background, his ability to weigh the evidence objectively, and the possible presence of any bias, hostility, or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses, as set forth in People v Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247). Therefore, contrary to the defendant's claim on this appeal, this case does not implicate the principles set forth in Sloan. Moreover, Antommarchi is to be applied only prospectively from October 27, 1992 ( People v Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519). Since the sidebar and voir dire in this case took place between August 3 and August 5, 1992, Antommarchi is not applicable and affords no relief to the defendant.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review her contention that the race-neutral reason proffered by the prosecutor in support of her peremptory challenge of a prospective black juror was pretextual ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. McCargo, 226 A.D.2d 480; People v. Holman, 221 A.D.2d 469; People v. Holman, 216 A.D.2d 488; People v. Cruz, 200 A.D.2d 581; People v. Bowman, 185 A.D.2d 891). In any event, we find no basis in the record for disturbing the trial court's determination that the reason proffered by the prosecutor was race neutral ( see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; People v Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101; see generally, People v. Jones, 88 N.Y.2d 172; cf., People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84). Balletta, J.P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.