Opinion
October 1, 1993
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention that County Court erred in denying, without conducting a hearing, defendant's motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of juror misconduct (see, CPL 330.30). In light of a supporting affidavit detailing the long-standing relationship between defendant and the juror, defendant failed to set forth a credible explanation for failing to challenge that juror's qualifications during voir dire, and thus waived his right to raise that issue for the first time after the jury rendered its verdict (see, People v. Cosmo, 205 N.Y. 91, 101; People v. O'Keefe, 281 App. Div. 409, 415, affd 306 N.Y. 619; People v. Albright, 104 A.D.2d 508, 510, revd on other grounds 65 N.Y.2d 666).
We also reject defendant's contention that the People failed to present evidence sufficient to corroborate the accomplice's testimony (see, CPL 60.22). The testimony of a pawn shop operator identifying defendant as the person from whom he purchased items identified by three separate burglary victims, and proof of defendant's possession of other items also taken from those victims were sufficient to satisfy the People's evidentiary burden (see, People v. Coumbes, 119 A.D.2d 935, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 811).
Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was not present during an initial Sandoval hearing conducted in chambers, the subsequent colloquy conducted in defendant's presence constituted a de novo hearing (see, People v. Russell, 191 A.D.2d 1001; People v. Berger, 188 A.D.2d 1073, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 881; People v. Smith, 186 A.D.2d 976, lv granted 81 N.Y.2d 794). Under the circumstances, defendant was not denied the right to be present at a critical stage of the proceedings (cf., People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656).