Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial. Although the court and counsel engaged in a preliminary discussion of the Sandoval issues in this case during an informal off-the-record conference, a full de novo hearing was conducted on the record in the defendant's presence ( see, People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 254; People v. Valentine, 212 A.D.2d 399).
Moreover, the defendant's contention that the jury verdict was repugnant is without merit. A comparison of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury establishes that the defendant's acquittal of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree was not conclusive with regard to a necessary element of robbery in the first degree ( see, People v. Marshall, 221 A.D.2d 476; People v. Bebee, 210 A.D.2d 243; People v. Haymes, 34 N.Y.2d 639, 640, cert denied 419 U.S. 1003; People v. Smith, 235 A.D.2d 558; People v Jordan, 175 A.D.2d 649, 650).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.