Opinion
September 11, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J., Jones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the waiver of the defendant's right to be present at side-bar conferences during jury selection was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, People v Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, 349-350, cert denied 423 U.S. 999; People v Underwood, 201 A.D.2d 597).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court erred by permitting a witness who had not previously identified the defendant to identify him in court. The defendant's counsel cross-examined the witness and explored the weaknesses and suggestiveness of his in-court identification (see, People v Medina, 208 A.D.2d 771, 772; People v Bradley, 154 A.D.2d 609, 610).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or do not require reversal. O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.