Calendar Date: May 2, 2018Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.__________Donna Maria Lasher, Youngsville, for appellant.D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (JoanGudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.__________Rumsey, J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County(Williams, J.), rendered April 9, 2015, convicting defendant uponhis plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the thirddegree.Defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the thirddegree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment, admitting that,while employed as a cashier, he stole cash from his register onmore than 10 occasions, in a total amount exceeding $1,000, whichhe gave to his codefendant, his husband, who was posing as acustomer. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the People promised torecommend a sentence of 1 to 3 years in prison. In turn, CountyCourt promised to impose a prison term of 2 to 7 years ifdefendant were determined to be eligible for shock incarceration(see Correction Law § 865 [1]), or a prison term of 1 to 3 yearsif he were deemed ineligible. Defendant’s release on his ownrecognizance was continued pending sentencing, and the January2015 sentencing date was adjourned at his request. Afterdefendant failed to appear at the April 2, 2015 adjourned dateset for sentencing, the court issued a bench warrant and againadjourned sentencing. When defendant failed to appear at therescheduled sentencing on April 9, 2015, the court sentenced himin absentia to a prison term of 2a to 7 years, and ordered himto pay restitution of $8,900. Defendant’s subsequent motion toset aside the sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 was denied.Defendant now appeals from the judgment of conviction.Contrary to defendant’s contention, his combined oral andwritten waiver of appeal was valid (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Tulip, 150 AD3d 1564, 1565-1566[2017]). To that end, County Court advised defendant that he hada right to appeal to a higher court, made clear that a waiver ofthat right would be final, explained that it was separate anddistinct from the trial-related rights he was automaticallyforgoing as a consequence of his guilty plea and ascertained thathe had no questions (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006];People v Sharpe, 159 AD3d 1192, 1193 [2018]). Counselrepresented that he had reviewed the detailed written appealwaiver — which adequately outlined the rights that defendant waswaiving — with defendant, who then confirmed that he had noquestions before he signed it in court (see People v Webb, 157AD3d 1132, 1132 [2018]; People v Zeller, 153 AD3d 1049, 1050-1051[2017]). While it is preferable that the court also explicitlyask a defendant if he or she has read the written waiver, underthe circumstances, we are satisfied that the oral colloquy incombination with the written waiver reviewed with counselestablish that defendant’s appeal waiver was knowing, voluntaryand intelligent (see People v Nichols, 155 AD3d 1186, 1187[2017]; People v Zeller, 153 AD3d at 1050-1051; People v Empey,144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).Defendant’s claim that County Court abused its discretionin sentencing him in absentia survives his waiver of appeal (seePeople v Klein, 124 AD3d 1143, 1143 [2015]). “While adefendant’s right to be present at every material stage of atrial is well established, it may be waived. For there to besuch a waiver, however, it must be shown that the defendant wasinformed of the right to be present at the proceedings and of theconsequences for failing to appear, including the fact that theproceedings would go forward in his or her absence” (People vMajor, 68 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2009] [citations omitted], lv denied14 NY3d 772 [2010]). Moreover, before proceeding in the absenceof a defendant who fails to appear, the court must conduct aninquiry into the reason for the absence and consider whether thedefendant could be located within a reasonable period of time(see People v Rodman, 104 AD3d 1186, 1186-1187 [2013], lv denied22 NY3d 1202 [2014]; People v Major, 68 AD3d at 1245; seealso People v Atkins, 154 AD3d 1064, 1065-1068 [2017], lvdismissed 31 NY3d 981 [2018]).Defendant does not dispute that he was properly informed ofthe right to be present at his sentencing or of the consequencesof failing to appear. Rather, he asserts that County Court erredby sentencing him in absentia without first inquiring into thereason for his absence. We agree. When defendant did not appearfor sentencing on April 2, 2015, the court noted that defendanthad been present for “each and every other occasion,” beforeissuing a bench warrant and adjourning sentencing to April 9,2015. When defendant again failed to appear, his counselrepresented that the only contact he had had with defendant was aconversation on April 1, 2015, when defendant informed counselthat he had additional doctors’ appointments to attend, andcounsel advised him to appear in court for sentencing on April 2,2015. There is no indication in the record that defendant wasadvised that sentencing was adjourned to April 9, 2015. Thecourt was aware of defendant’s medical condition, which hadrequired hospitalization in October 2014 and was the reason thatsentencing was first adjourned from January 2015 to April 2,2015. The court specifically observed that no explanation fordefendant’s absence had been provided by defendant or his counselbut, nonetheless, made no inquiry on the record into the statusof any efforts to locate defendant since April 2, when it hadissued the bench warrant, before it proceeded to sentence him inabsentia. In light of its failure to make any inquiry whatsoeverinto the reason for defendant’s absence, County Court erred whenit sentenced defendant in absentia.1 Defendant’s remainingcontentions have been rendered academic.Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, byvacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the CountyCourt of Ulster County for resentencing; and, as so modified,affirmed.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court1 Although not part of this appeal, the record shows thatdefendant’s motion
