Opinion
January 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 265.02; § 120.25; People v. Robinson, 180 A.D.2d 767). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's right to be present at trial was not violated by his brief removal from the courtroom during the prosecutor's summation. The defendant forfeited his right to be present when he engaged in disruptive behavior after he was warned by the court that he would be removed if he continued such conduct (see, CPL 260.20; People v. Brooks, 184 A.D.2d 274).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.