Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's actions in questioning, at a sidebar, one prospective juror concerning her ability to weigh evidence objectively and impartially during jury selection in the defendant's absence does not require reversal since the voir dire proceedings predated the holding of the Court of Appeals in People v Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247; see, People v Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519).
The court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge since the defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing that the uncalled witness was knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case and that the witness would naturally be expected to provide testimony favorable to the People who had not called him (see, People v Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532, 536).
Furthermore, viewing the representation afforded the defendant in light of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances presented here, the defendant received meaningful assistance from his trial counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), or without merit. Joy, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.