Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it refused to sever his trial from that of his codefendant. The defenses of the defendant and his codefendant were irreconcilable. Nevertheless, there was substantial independent evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant danger that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer the defendant's guilt (see, People v Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, revd and remanded on different grounds 481 U.S. 186, on remand 70 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Payne, 35 N.Y.2d 22; see also, People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174). Nor was the defendant's right to confront the codefendant or his right to testify prejudiced by the trial court's rulings (see, People v McGee, 68 N.Y.2d 328; People v. Williams, 142 A.D.2d 310; see also, People v. Brodie, 170 A.D.2d 519).
Finally, the defendant's right to be present at all material stages of the proceedings against him (see, CPL 260.20; People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247) was not violated. He was not entitled to be present at a conference conducted by the trial court, in the presence of counsel, with a juror who sought to be excused because of employment commitments, because it did not effect his ability to defend himself (see, e.g., People v Aguilera, 82 N.Y.2d 23; see also, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.