Opinion
August 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant, who was jointly tried with the codefendant Vernon Ricks, correctly argues that his absence from sidebar conferences at which prospective jurors were questioned regarding pretrial publicity the case had received mandates reversal under the dictates of People v. Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386; see also, People v. Ricks, 218 A.D.2d 820 [decided herewith]).
For purposes of a new trial, we find that the court properly instructed the jury that the accomplice status of the witness Gibbs was a question of fact (see, People v. Ricks, supra). We also find that the court properly admitted evidence of uncharged crimes (see, People v. Ricks, supra). The defendant was not prejudiced by the loss or destruction of Police Officer Urbanski's original notes and therefore the court properly did not impose a sanction on the People (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953). The evidence at the pretrial hearing was sufficient to show that the witnesses and the defendant were known to each other and that the precinct showup and photo array were merely confirmatory. Therefore, it was not necessary to hold a separate hearing to explore the issue of the witnesses' familiarity with the defendant (cf., People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445). Finally, the court did not err in permitting the defense to utilize only the underlying facts, but not the disposition, of witness Ellenbrook's juvenile adjudication to impeach his credibility (cf., People v. Mickens, 202 A.D.2d 292).
Because we remit this matter for a new trial, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Goldstein, J., concurs in the result only, for reasons stated in the concurring memorandum in People v. Ricks ( 218 A.D.2d 820 [decided herewith]).