Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant effectively waived his right to have the jury sequestered during its deliberations. In court, in the presence of defendant, counsel stipulated that the jury be permitted to go home overnight after it had commenced deliberations. "The demand for a knowing and intelligent waiver `has been applied only to those rights which the Constitution guarantees to a criminal defendant in order to preserve a fair trial' (Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 237)" (People v D'Alvia, 171 A.D.2d 96, 107, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1075). "[T]he requirement that a deliberating jury be sequestered is entirely statutory and reflects no established common-law right of the defendant" (People v Webb, 78 N.Y.2d 335, 339-340). The purpose of the sequestration provision was not for the protection of defendant, but "simply to force [the jury] to agree" (People v Webb, supra, at 340, n). Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the alleged incidents of prosecutorial misconduct. Contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).