Davison Law Office, PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of counsel), for appellant.
Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM .
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The trial court's failure to make a finding of necessity for the stun belt's use does not constitute an unwaivable mode of proceedings error (see People v. Buchanan, 13 N.Y.3d 1, 4, 884 N.Y.S.2d 337, 912 N.E.2d 553 [2009] ; see generally People v. Hanley, 20 N.Y.3d 601, 604, 964 N.Y.S.2d 491, 987 N.E.2d 268 [2013] ; People v. Schrock, 108 A.D.3d 1221, 1224–1225, 969 N.Y.S.2d 668 [4th Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 998, 981 N.Y.S.2d 4, 3 N.E.3d 1172 [2013], denied reconsideration 23 N.Y.3d 1025, 992 N.Y.S.2d 807, 16 N.E.3d 1287 [2014] ; see also People v. Gamble, 18 N.Y.3d 386, 396–397, 941 N.Y.S.2d 1, 964 N.E.2d 372 [2012], rearg. denied 19 N.Y.3d 833, 945 N.Y.S.2d 643, 968 N.E.2d 999 [2012] ). Thus, as defendant never objected, and indeed expressly consented to wearing a stun belt at trial, he waived his contention that he was denied a fair trial on the ground that he was restrained by means of that security device (see People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656 [1978] ; cf. Buchanan, 13 N.Y.3d at 3, 884 N.Y.S.2d 337, 912 N.E.2d 553 ). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges READ, PIGOTT, RIVERA, ABDUS–SALAAM and STEIN concur; Judge FAHEY taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11 ), order affirmed, in a memorandum.