Opinion
February 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when, following a mistrial, the trial court repeated its Sandoval ruling for his new attorney in the defendant's absence. The defense counsel expressly waived his client's presence at the colloquy and participated in the colloquy in the absence of the defendant without objection. Moreover, neither the defendant nor defense counsel raised an objection or moved to reopen the hearing at any point subsequent thereto (see, People v. Peterson, 151 A.D.2d 512; People v. Stoute, 140 A.D.2d 728). In any event, the defendant was not prejudiced by his absence from the colloquy, since he was present for the original hearing and the colloquy was merely a reiteration of a prior ruling. Moreover, the court and the prosecutor correctly summarized the prior Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Lee, 168 A.D.2d 267; People v. Peterson, supra, at 513; People v. Stoute, supra, at 728).
Nor was the defendant deprived of a fair trial when the trial court restricted his testimony regarding his state of mind. The defendant's failure to specify to the trial court the basis for the offer of this testimony renders his argument unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v. Mercado, 135 A.D.2d 661). In any event, the defendant and his brother were permitted to testify extensively as to the victim's prior acts of violence and the proffered testimony would have been cumulative on the issue of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the shooting.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.