Opinion
October 14, 1997
Appeal from the defendant the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.),
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial. Although the court and counsel engaged in a preliminary discussion of the Sandoval issues in this case during an informal off-the-record conference, a full de novo hearing was conducted on the record in the defendant's presence ( see, People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 254; People v. Valentine, 212 A.D.2d 399).
Moreover, the defendant's contention that the jury verdict was repugnant is without merit. A comparison of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury establishes that the defendant's acquittal of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree was not conclusive with regard to a necessary element of robbery in the first degree ( see, People v. Marshall, 221 A.D.2d 476; People v. Bebee, 210 A.D.2d 243; People v. Haymes, 34 N.Y.2d 639, 640, cert denied 419 U.S. 1003; People v. Smith, 235 A.D.2d 558; People v Jordan, 175 A.D.2d 649, 650).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.