Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at side-bar discussions that are intended to find out a prospective juror's bias, hostility, or ability to be objective (People v Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 250). This right may be waived as long as the defendant waives it knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see, People v Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, 349-350, cert denied 423 U.S. 999; People v Underwood, 201 A.D.2d 597). Here, the defendant's initial waiver may have been questionable. However, that his subsequent waiver was made after he sat through part of the voir dire proceedings with the first panel of venire persons, after he was present at a side-bar conference, and after he had expressly consented to the side-bar procedures, demonstrates that his subsequent waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Jackson, 208 A.D.2d 862; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.