Opinion
November 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although two prospective jurors initially expressed some concern about the emotional impact of violent crimes committed against them or their families, they both ultimately indicated that this would not affect their ability to sit as fair and impartial jurors. Accordingly, the court did not err in denying the defendant's application to excuse these jurors for cause (see, People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 884-885).
In addition, the defendant's right to be present during the impaneling of the jury was not impaired by his exclusion from certain preliminary questioning of prospective jurors, prior to the formal voir dire, where his attorney was present and he did not object. Such procedures did not violate the defendant's statutory or constitutional right to be present at the impaneling of the jury (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; People v Knight, 173 A.D.2d 646; People v. Blake, 158 A.D.2d 979; People v Ganett, 68 A.D.2d 81, affd 51 N.Y.2d 991; see also, Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106-107; People v. Ramos, 173 A.D.2d 748). Likewise, the defendant's right to be present was not impaired by his absence from conferences during which counsel advised the court of their peremptory challenges and challenges for cause (People v. Velasco, supra; People v. Ramos, supra; People v. Knight, supra).
Finally, the court did not err in imposing a mandatory surcharge (see, People v. Barnes, 62 N.Y.2d 702). Should the defendant find himself unable to pay the surcharge at the conclusion of his imprisonment, he may then move for a waiver thereof (CPL 420.10; People v. West, 124 Misc.2d 622; People v. Conigliaro, 144 A.D.2d 685; People v. Fulton, 138 A.D.2d 514). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.