Opinion
198 SSM 28.
Decided December 15, 2005.
APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered May 9, 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kenneth Resnik, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.
The Appellate Division concluded that defendant's claim that she was denied the right to be present during robing room discussions with potential jurors concerning issues of possible bias or hostility, supported only by the absence of a notation in the transcript as to her presence, was without merit, and, without more, was insufficient to meet defendant's burden of rebutting the presumption of regularity applicable to such proceedings.
People v. Buonincontri, 18 AD3d 569, affirmed.
Labe M. Richman, New York City, for appellant.
Michael E. Bongiorno, District Attorney, New City ( Ellen O'Hara Woods of counsel), for respondent.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The defendant was informed on the record that she had the right to be present during questioning of a prospective juror concerning the ability to be fair and impartial. The Appellate Division properly determined that defendant failed to present an adequate record to overcome the presumption of regularity ( see People v. Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 48).
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.