Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.
The defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed since he was not present at the Sandoval hearing. We agree. The defendant's presence at the Sandoval hearing would not have been merely "superfluous" because the Sandoval ruling was not "wholly favorable" to him (see, People v Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254; People v Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872; People v Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906; People v Law, 199 A.D.2d 282). Therefore, since the defendant was not present at the Sandoval hearing, reversal of the judgment is warranted.
Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 125.20; People v Stevens, 186 A.D.2d 832; People v Martin, 182 A.D.2d 834; People v Davis, 181 A.D.2d 411; People v Tabb, 180 A.D.2d 770; People v White, 132 A.D.2d 633).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.