Defendant's claim that he was excluded from a robing room conference is unreviewable because he did not meet his obligation to insure that a proper record is created to permit appellate review ( People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772; People v. Moe, 227 A.D.2d 253, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 968; People v. Noble, 227 A.D.2d 238, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 991; compare, People v. Monclavo, 87 N.Y.2d 1029). Moreover, the court reporter's notation relied upon by defendant fails to establish defendant's absence, when the notation is read in the context of the entire voir dire record along with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom ( see, People v Moe, supra; People v. Rivera, 225 A.D.2d 360, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 941; People v. Brown, 221 A.D.2d 160, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 898).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.