PEOPLE v. LANDRY (1999)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered April 2, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that his right to be present at sidebar questioning of potential jurors was violated (see, generally, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 604 N.E.2d 95).   A defendant bears the burden of establishing his right to be present at a particular conference, and reversal will not be required unless his presence would have affected the outcome of the conference (see, People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363, 645 N.Y.S.2d 759, 668 N.E.2d 879;  People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 568 N.Y.S.2d 721, 570 N.E.2d 1070).   Moreover, the right to be present during jury selection “does not extend to sidebar conferences concerning the inability of prospective jurors to serve because of physical impairments, family obligations, or work commitments” (People v. Neverson, 247 A.D.2d 492, 667 N.Y.S.2d 945;  see, People v. Camacho, 90 N.Y.2d 558, 664 N.Y.S.2d 578, 687 N.E.2d 396;  People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363, 645 N.Y.S.2d 759, 668 N.E.2d 879, supra;  People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 568 N.Y.S.2d 721, 570 N.E.2d 1070, supra).   The defendant in this case failed to meet his burden, since the conferences at which he now claims he should have been present concerned only scheduling matters or family obligations, and the defendant consented to the only dismissal of a potential juror which resulted from those conferences.   Hence, his presence at those conferences would not have affected the outcomes.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.