Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was excluded from a material stage of the trial when both counsel exercised their peremptory challenges and challenges for cause outside of his presence. We disagree. The record indicates that the defendant was present during the voir dire and that the challenges were given effect in his presence when the accepted jurors were seated and sworn in open court (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; People v Kaur, 204 A.D.2d 573; People v. Jackson, 202 A.D.2d 518; People v Yonamine, 192 A.D.2d 687; People v. Melendez, 182 A.D.2d 644).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred by refusing to give a missing-witness charge with respect to a police officer is without merit. The People established that the uncalled officer was not available, and, in any event, his testimony would have been cumulative (see, People v. Brown, 202 A.D.2d 514; People v. Tate, 199 A.D.2d 291).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.