Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was not present during a pretrial Sandoval conference held in chambers, wherein County Court determined that, should defendant choose to testify, he could be cross-examined concerning prior bad acts (see, People v Beasley, 80 N.Y.2d 981, rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 759; People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656). Because County Court's ruling was not wholly favorable to defendant, reversal is required (see, People v. Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872, 874; People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254). We disagree with the People's characterization of the proceeding as a Ventimiglia hearing (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350) because the People were not seeking to introduce evidence of prior bad acts on their direct case. In any event, even if the hearing is so characterized, reversal is still required (see, People v. Spotford, 196 A.D.2d 179). In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach defendant's alternative argument.