Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A presumption of regularity attaches to official court proceedings. Therefore, a defendant has the burden of coming forward with substantial evidence to rebut that presumption (see, People v. Robinson, 191 A.D.2d 523; People v. Pichardo, 168 A.D.2d 577; People v. Davis, 151 A.D.2d 596). Here, the defendant failed to meet this burden in support of his allegation that he was not afforded his right to be present at the Sandoval hearing (see, People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656).
The defendant further contends that his right to be present during the impaneling of the jury was impaired because he was absent from the conference in which counsel advised the court of their peremptory and for-cause challenges to prospective jurors. However, since the voir dire was conducted in open court and the challenges were later formally effected in open court, when the defendant had an opportunity to consult with his attorney, this contention is unavailing (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; People v. Montgomery, 213 A.D.2d 563, affd 88 N.Y.2d 926; see also, People v. Cameron, 244 A.D.2d 350).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.