Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of the trial because side-bar questioning of prospective jurors was conducted in his absence. Because the prospective jurors were excused following those side-bar conferences, reversal on that ground is not required (see, People v Hines, 205 A.D.2d 468, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 868; People v Castro-Garcia, 203 A.D.2d 899, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 965; People v Rodriguez, 203 A.D.2d 92, lv granted 84 N.Y.2d 832; People v Arnold, 201 A.D.2d 965, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 849). We are compelled to add that, under People v Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247, rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 759), the better practice is for the court to permit a defendant to be present at a side-bar conference. If a side-bar conference is conducted in defendant's absence, the court should place on the record the nature of that conference to permit appellate review.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.