Prior to the commencement of jury selection, defense counsel advised the court, "Judge, Mr. Holliday will waive his Antommarchi [ sic] right to approach," to which the court responded, "Okay. And as you're aware, if you have any concerns you will always have time to confer with him if you want to explore it." Thereafter, during the voir dire, the court conducted a number of sidebars with prospective jurors, some involving questions of a ministerial nature, others involving questions of possible bias. Defendant contends that the colloquy cited above is insufficient to establish an effective waiver of his right to be present at sidebar conferences pursuant to People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247; see, e.g., People v. Paterson, 227 A.D.2d 348, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 991; People v. Curry, 209 A.D.2d 357, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 908).
A waiver is not invalid merely because it is expressed by counsel rather than in defendant's own voice (People v. Underwood, 201 A.D.2d 597, 598, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1008), particularly when made in defendant's presence ( see, e.g., People v. Smallwood, 225 A.D.2d 713, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 942; People v. Stokes, 216 A.D.2d 337, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 803). We do not find the colloquy to be so deficient as to warrant reversal, as defendant urges. Rather, given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the colloquy here, we remand the matter to reconstruct "the fullest record possible" (People v. Bennett, 238 A.D.2d 138, 139), in order to determine whether defendant understood the precise nature and consequences of the waiver.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.