Opinion
March 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue of whether the People made a prima facie showing of a reverse- Batson violation by the defense was rendered academic when the defense offered its race-neutral explanations without first objecting to the court's finding of a prima facie case ( see, Hernandez v New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359; People v Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 515; People v Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485).
The charge to the jury relating to the defendant's flight, read as a whole, conveyed the proper standards to the jury ( see, People v Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817; People v Harrison, 151 A.D.2d 501).
The court conducted a pretrial Rodriguez hearing to determine whether a witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant so that any suggestibility in a photographic identification would be vitiated ( see, People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445). While a defendant has a right to be present so that he may assist his counsel at this material stage of the trial ( see, CPL 260.20; see generally, People v Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247; People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656; People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; People v Williams, 186 A.D.2d 161), the defendant may forfeit that right by deliberately absenting himself from the proceedings ( see, People v Brooks, 75 N.Y.2d 898; People v Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436). Here, the record shows that while the defendant was present in the courthouse, he deliberately absented himself from the hearing.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.