Opinion
December 16, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The trial court correctly permitted the trial to proceed without defendant in attendance. Defendant forfeited his right to be present when, with knowledge that the trial was to begin and that he was obligated to be present and without excuse (cf. People v Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136), he failed to appear (see, People v Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436).
The court properly refused to charge the jury on unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree as a lesser included offense of grand larceny in the second degree since it would be theoretically possible to commit the latter without concomitantly committing the former (see, CPL 1.20; People v Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61). Since a rational trier of fact could have found that the elements of the crimes of which defendant stands convicted were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the People satisfied their burden of proof (see, People v Foster, 64 N.Y.2d 1144, cert denied ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 166). Finally, the trial court's ruling on defendant's Sandoval motion (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) did not amount to an abuse of discretion (see, People v Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262-263, cert. denied 423 U.S. 861) and hence does not warrant reversal. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.