Opinion
September 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).
Defendant's presence was not required at the conference at which matters preparatory to the Sandoval hearing were discussed. The points discussed were repeated for defendant upon her belated arrival in court, after which a de novo determination was made concerning the few prior bad acts into which inquiry had not been previously prohibited at the preparatory conference (see, People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 268; People v. Watson, 205 A.D.2d 398). Denial of defendant's application made on the morning of the first day of trial, to have her sixth attorney on the case relieved, did not deny her the right to effective assistance of conflict-free counsel, defendant having failed to show a "significant possibility" of a conflict of interest between herself and her attorney (People v Macerola, 47 N.Y.2d 257, 264).
Finally, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381), including, inter alia, admission to her employers that she altered documents pertaining to the relocation expenses she was accused of having obtained under false pretenses.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.