Defendant was not deprived of his right to be present during the questioning of a prospective juror concerning his employment as a correction officer, inasmuch as both prior to and subsequent to the sidebar in question there was a thorough voir dire of the prospective juror on the same subject in open court ( see, People v. Camacho, 90 N.Y.2d 558; People v. Roman, 88 N.Y.2d 18, 29).
Moreover, inasmuch as defendant's modus operandi was sufficiently unique, the court properly instructed the jury to consider the similarities between the various incidents on the issue of identity, while also cautioning it not to otherwise commingle the evidence. ( People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241, 250-253). We perceive no abuse, of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.