Opinion
September 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his constitutional and statutory right to be present at the suppression hearing (see, CPL 260.20; People v Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450; People v Anderson, 16 N.Y.2d 282), was not violated after the hearing court continued the hearing in his absence. The defendant's presence is required only where it has "a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend [himself]" (Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106; see also, People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472). Because the proceeding related solely to issues regarding the codefendant, the defendant's presence would have been meaningless.
Further, the sentencing court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences with respect to two counts of felony murder. Although the two victims' deaths may have occurred in the course of a single extended transaction, separate acts caused their deaths and neither act was a material act of the other (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v Truesdall, 70 N.Y.2d 809). Nor was the defendant's sentence excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v Hopkins, 76 N.Y.2d 872; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011) or do not require reversal. Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.