Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence establishes that the defendant and an accomplice (see, People v. Lydon, 197 A.D.2d 640 [decided herewith]) murdered the victim as she slept, and that this murder occurred during the course of a burglary of the victim's home. The defendant argues that he was not personally present during the County Court's in camera interviews with certain prospective jurors, and that a new trial is warranted for this reason. We disagree.
The defendant's argument is based on the interrelated rules of law announced by the Court of Appeals in People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247) and People v. Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386). Both of these cases were decided after the defendant's trial had been completed, and neither the Antommarchi rule nor the Sloan rule is retroactive (see, People v. Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519; People v. Hannigan, 193 A.D.2d 8; see also, People v. Cohen, 158 Misc.2d 262).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
O'Brien, J., concurs with the following memorandum:
For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in People v Hannigan ( 193 A.D.2d 8), I would not reach the defendant's contention that the prescreening of the jurors violated the rule in People v. Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386). I agree with my colleagues that the remaining issues raised by the defendant are without merit and that the judgment should be affirmed.