| People v Maynard |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05543 [108 AD3d 781] |
| July 31, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tareek Maynard, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered June 22, 2010, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (fourcounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of his right to be presentat all material stages of trial. Since the pretrial proceedings at issue only involvedquestions of law or procedure, his presence was not required (see People v Fabricio, 3 NY3d402, 406 [2004]; People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 27-28 [1996]; People vRodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 591 [1995]; People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 457[1992]; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 472 [1991]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to presenta defense is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event,the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant from calling a witness to testifyabout a tape-recorded conversation. The hearsay conversation did not possess sufficientindicia of reliability, and was not material to the defense (see People v Burns, 6 NY3d793, 795 [2006]; People vFields, 89 AD3d 861, 862 [2011]; People v Ortiz, 81 AD3d 513, 514 [2011]; cf.Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 302 [1973]; People v Robinson, 89NY2d 648, 654 [1997]; Peoplev Oxley, 64 AD3d 1078, 1083-1084 [2009]). Furthermore, there is no merit tothe defendant's contention that the failure of trial counsel to preserve his constitutionalclaim for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d277, 287 [2004]; People vMcKenzie, 48 AD3d 594, 595 [2008]; People v Stover, 36 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.