In People v. Aiken, 45 NY2d 394 (1978) the defendant absented himself after nine jurors had been selected. The trial court denied Aiken's attorney's request for a mistrial and directed the attorney to proceed with the defendant's defense in his absence. The attorney, however, did not participate. The defendant was convicted and on appeal complained that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals stated, "we view counsel's conduct as indicative of a conscious strategic decision designed to pressure the trial court into declaring a mistrial. As such the wisdom of counsel's decision can provide no basis for appellant's claim that he was denied effective counsel." Id. The Court of Appeals, in any event, went on to analyze Aiken's specific contentions of his attorney's alleged ineffectiveness which consisted of the attorney's waiver of an opening and closing statement, the failure to cross examine any witnesses or call any witnesses as well as the failure to object to the introduction of any evidence at trial. The Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 400. Furthermore, in People v. Aiken, the Court of Appeals emphasized that: "a defendant who absents himself from trial may not succeed on appeal by raising counsel's purported ineffectiveness where counsel affirmatively, as a matter of trial strategy, sought to obstruct the trial of his client. Having previously held that a defendant who voluntarily and wilfully absents himself from trial waives his right to confrontation and to be present at trial, we would erode, if not destroy, the significance of that ruling were we to reverse an absented defendant's conviction because of counsel's refusal to actively participate at trial. To do otherwise would be to permit defendant's counsel to accomplish that which we will not permit a defendant to accomplish himself: that is, to render the trial a nullity." Id.