Opinion
February 7, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William H. Wallace, III, J.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Any inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony were minor and we decline to disturb the jury's resolution of issues of credibility (People v. Corporan, 169 A.D.2d 643, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 959).
The defendant's waiver of his right to be present during sidebar questioning of prospective jurors was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made since he was informed of his right to be present and of the consequences of its waiver (People v. Scott, 156 A.D.2d 160, 160-161, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 817). Moreover, since both he and counsel remained silent after the waiver was accepted by the court, the waiver was effective (see, People v. Curry, 209 A.D.2d 357, 358, citing People v Perez, 196 A.D.2d 781, 784, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 900). In any event, the defendant was not prejudiced since none of the jurors questioned outside his presence were ultimately selected to serve on the jury (People v. Perez, supra; People v. Hines, 205 A.D.2d 468, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 868) and since he was present at the on-the-record questioning of the jurors and when counsel issued challenges to them (People v. Gooding, 202 A.D.2d 375, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 826).
We have considered the other contentions raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.