Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of due process of law because he was not present at an in camera conference at which the court attempted to ensure the availability of a defense witness. We find that the defendant's right to be present was not violated (see, People v. Aguilera, 82 N.Y.2d 23, 34; People v Torres, 80 N.Y.2d 944; People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450, 457; People v. Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871; People v. Anderson, 16 N.Y.2d 282). Moreover, we find "from the defense counsel's failure to object to the defendant's absence from the [conference] that it is apparent that defense counsel did not believe that the in camera inquiry of the * * * witness prejudiced the defendant's defense" (People v. Harrison, 181 A.D.2d 743, 744).
The defendant's pro se contention has already been decided by this Court on a prior motion by the defendant. Therefore, this Court's prior determination is the law of the case (see, People v. Barnes, 155 A.D.2d 468).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either waived (see, People v. Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741, 741-742; People v. Howard, 193 A.D.2d 620, 621), meritless, or harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Florio JJ., concur.