Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his absence from an in-chambers conference held prior to jury selection deprived him of the right to be present at a Ventimiglia hearing (see, People v Spotford, 196 A.D.2d 179, lv granted 83 N.Y.2d 915). The record fully supports Supreme Court's determination, made after a reconstruction hearing, that the limited discussion at the in-chambers conference did not constitute a Ventimiglia hearing. Neither defendant nor the People made an application for a Ventimiglia ruling; no factual or legal arguments were made; and the court did not make an affirmative ruling (see, People v Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872; People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656; cf., People v. Sanchez, 209 A.D.2d 1012; People v. Spotford, supra).
Defendant failed to preserve for review the court's failure to charge the jury that defendant's knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance must be proven (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Young, 209 A.D.2d 996; People v. Mammarello, 209 A.D.2d 999), and we decline to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).