ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
A criminal defendant has the right to be present during jury selection, including sidebar conversations at which jurors are questioned about their ability to weigh evidence and hear testimony objectively and impartially (see CPL 260.20; People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363; People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247; People v. Sloan, 79 N.Y.2d 386). It is equally well settled, however, that a presumption of regularity attaches to all judicial proceedings, and the defendant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption (see People v. Torres, 267 A.D.2d 261; People v. Firrira, 258 A.D.2d 666; People v. Washington, 246 A.D.2d 676). Here, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of regularity. The transcript indicates that the sidebar conferences were conducted in the defendant's presence, in the courtroom, albeit off the record and at the bench. There were no prospective jurors in the courtroom and, presumably, relevant discussions were conducted in normal conversational tones. As there is no indication in the record from which to infer that the defendant was unable to hear the relevant proceedings, he failed to establish that he was, in fact, denied the right to be present during jury selection (see People v. Torres, supra; People v. Washington, supra; People v. Brown, 221 A.D.2d 160; People v. Swift, 213 A.D.2d 355).
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.