Opinion
March 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that he was deprived of his right to be present at a "material stage of the trial" when the court conducted a Sandoval hearing in his absence. We disagree.
A presumption of regularity attaches to official court proceedings, and, as a result, the defendant has the burden of coming forward with substantial evidence to rebut that presumption (see, People v. Pichardo, 168 A.D.2d 577; People v Davis, 151 A.D.2d 596; People v. Marchese, 140 A.D.2d 547). Although the minutes of the Sandoval hearing do not indicate whether or not the defendant was present at the hearing, the defendant offers no additional evidence supporting his conclusory assertion that he was not present. As such, we find that the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption of regularity which attached to the proceeding (see, People v. Pichardo, supra).
Further, viewing the evidence in a the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.