Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly allowed the introduction of evidence of the defendant's prior uncharged crimes on the issue of identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264), as the People established a modus operandi (see, People v Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241; People v Jason, 190 A.D.2d 689). In order to establish a modus operandi, "[i]t is not necessary that the pattern be ritualistic for it to be considered unique; it is sufficient that it be a pattern which is distinctive. This is not to say each element of the pattern must be in and of itself unusual; rather the pattern, when viewed as a whole, must be [unique]" (People v Beam, 57 N.Y.2d, at 253, supra; People v Jason, supra).
It is well established that a defendant has a statutory right to be present during the trial of an indictment (see, CPL 260.20). The defendant additionally has the right to be present "whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge" (Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-106; see also, People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656). Here, the hearing concerning the identification of a codefendant, conducted in the defendant's absence, did not substantially effect the defendant's ability to defend, and thus, did not constitute a violation of his right to be present at the material stages of trial.
The record does not demonstrate that the defendant was improperly deprived of Brady material at his trial (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.