DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it delayed its acceptance of the defendant's waiver of his right to be present during sidebar conferences with prospective jurors. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Hong Vuu, 284 A.D.2d 285; People v. Congelosi, 266 A.D.2d 930; People v. King, 234 A.D.2d 391), and in any event, it is devoid of merit ( see People v. Williams, 92 N.Y.2d 993; People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363; People v. DeLaRosa, 289 A.D.2d 150, 151).
The defendant also contends that he was denied his statutory right to testify before the grand jury. However, having failed to move to dismiss the indictment within five days of his arraignment thereon, the defendant waived this contention ( see CPL 190.50[c]; People v. Purcell, 268 A.D.2d 491; People v. Obee, 232 A.D.2d 430, 431; People v. Valle, 198 A.D.2d 459). In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, his attorney's failure to effectuate his intention to testify before the grand jury, standing alone, did not constitute the denial of effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Wiggins, 89 N.Y.2d 872, 873; People v. Sherrod, 306 A.D.2d 503; People v. Ali, 292 A.D.2d 538; People v. DiGabriele, 262 A.D.2d 331).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., TOWNES, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.