PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not err in excluding the defendant's children from the courtroom during summations after finding that they were "distracting". In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not exclude the defendant's wife from the courtroom (see, People v. Gomez, 256 A.D.2d 589; People v. Daniels, 237 A.D.2d 529).

The defendant's claim that the court failed to supervise a brief reading by a translator of a witness's prior statement is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ortiz, 250 A.D.2d 626, 627). Moreover, the defendant's absence during the reading did not constitute a violation of his right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see, People v. Melendez, 227 A.D.2d 646).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.