Opinion
January 9, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).
The trial court, having apprised defendant immediately before the trial began of the consequences of not appearing, properly continued the trial in defendant's absence after ascertaining that he had voluntarily absconded ( see, People v Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 141), and defendant's right to be present was not restored when the court learned, shortly after it had begun its charge, that defendant had been arrested for what it later learned, during jury deliberations, was an unrelated crime ( see, People v Herrera, 219 A.D.2d 511). Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not supported by an adequate record such as might have been developed by an appropriate postjudgment motion. Upon the present record, it appears that counsel competently put forth evidence and cross-examined witnesses, and that the decision to forego scientific tests that might have proven incriminatory was a reasonable tactic ( see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147). Defendant's final claim of possible misconduct by a juror who interviewed other jurors after the trial and wrote a magazine article about that trial is based on hearsay ( see, People v Salaam, 187 A.D.2d 363, 364-365, affd 83 N.Y.2d 51), dehors the record, and in any event does not assert any improprieties.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.