Opinion
June 17, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Failla, J.).
Defendant's participation with codefendant in two violent muggings was established by overwhelming evidence. Defendant's bolstering claims are unpreserved for review as a matter of law (People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would find that even if the officer's testimony that codefendant "fit the description" did implicitly bolster the eyewitness identification, such was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concerning defendant's absence from the charge conference, the record clearly shows that his attorney, in his presence, specifically waived his right to be present thereat, that defendant acknowledged this waiver, and that the court, both at the time of the waiver as well as prior to the conference, specifically stated, without objection, that defendant had personally waived his right to be present. In other words, there was a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to be present (see, e.g., People v. Martinez, 179 A.D.2d 519, 520, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1003; People v. Peterson, 151 A.D.2d 512). Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, are without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.