Opinion
November 24, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, his absence during a portion of the Wade hearing does not mandate reversal in this case. The record supports the finding that the defendant validly waived his right to be present. The circumstances surrounding the defendant's absence indicated that the defendant's absence was knowing and voluntary ( see, People v. Lynes, 197 A.D.2d 381). Moreover, the colloquy between the bench and counsel reflected that the defendant had excluded himself for strategic reasons under the advisement of his attorney.
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Copertino, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.