Opinion
February 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.).
Defendant adopts the arguments made by his codefendant that led to the trial court's setting aside the verdict against the codefendant, from which order an appeal by the People is pending in this Court. Defendant, however, did not preserve any of the arguments by specifically raising them himself before the trial court ( see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, without passing upon the validity of the trial court's rationale in setting aside the verdict against the codefendant, we would find that rationale inapplicable to the facts of defendant's case.
Although "a defendant is entitled to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors concerning their backgrounds and ability to weigh the evidence objectively" ( People v. Cooper, 220 A.D.2d 234), reversal is unwarranted where, as here, defendant's absence was limited to a sidebar concerning a potential juror who was never empaneled ( People v. Starks, 216 A.D.2d 120, 120-121, lv granted 86 N.Y.2d 847). Moreover, this prospective juror was obviously unacceptable to the defense, and it is inconceivable that defendant's presence at the sidebar could have made any difference. The court acted within its discretion as to all matters relating to the use of a temporary interpreter for an uncommon Chinese dialect ( see, People v Nedal, 198 A.D.2d 42). Defendant's claims based upon Judiciary Law § 387 are unpreserved and unsupported by the record. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.