Opinion
July 16, 1993
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant's contention that the trial court failed to comply with CPL 710.60 (6) is raised for the first time on appeal and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice (see, People v. Hunt, 187 A.D.2d 981, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 887).
The trial court's failure to order, sua sponte, a psychiatric examination to determine whether defendant was competent to stand trial (see, CPL 730.30) did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Savona, 176 A.D.2d 362, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 864; People v. Bancroft, 110 A.D.2d 773, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 812).
We reject defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to be present at trial because he was removed from the courtroom during voir dire, the probation violation hearing and sentencing. The court properly excluded defendant when he continued to engage in disorderly and disruptive conduct after being warned by the court that he would be removed (see, CPL 260.20; People v. Byrd, 163 A.D.2d 407, 408).
The verdict finding defendant guilty of robbery in the third degree and not guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree is not repugnant (see, People v. Loughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 804, 806).
Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401).