Review of defendant's claim that he was denied his right to be present at robing room discussions with prospective jurors is precluded, since defendant has failed to provide this Court with a record showing any such absence (see, People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 318, 325; People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772). The existing record, which contains two days of voir dire transcribed by different reporters, viewed as a whole together with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, establishes instead that defendant was present at the robing room proceedings in question (People v. Hogan, 251 A.D.2d 43 lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Styles, 237 A.D.2d 206, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 864; People v. Rivera, 225 A.D.2d 360, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 941). In any event, each of the prospective jurors in question was excused on "consent" after expressing some degree of bias against defendant. Therefore, each of the excusals was in the nature of an uncontested excusal for cause, and thus defendant could not have made a meaningful contribution to any of the robing room proceedings.
SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, WALLACH, ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, JJ.