Opinion
March 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was excluded from a material stage of the trial when counsel exercised their challenges to the jury outside of his presence is without merit. The record indicates that the defendant was present during the voir dire, he had an opportunity to consult with his counsel, and the challenges were given effect in his presence when the accepted jurors were sworn in open court (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; see also, People v. Parks, 210 A.D.2d 437; People v. Kaur, 204 A.D.2d 573; People v. Jackson, 202 A.D.2d 518; People v. Cohen, 201 A.D.2d 494; People v. Williams, 199 A.D.2d 445).
The defendant's further contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is likewise without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, establish that the defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184; see also, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Lewis, 210 A.D.2d 351). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.