Opinion
November 24, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in its initial charge to the jury regarding count eight of the indictment is not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. McKenzie, 67 N.Y.2d 695; People v. Leitzsey, 173 A.D.2d 488). In any event, this contention is without merit ( see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274).
The defendant's assertion that the court failed meaningfully to respond to a note from the jury regarding count seven and that it gave an incorrect supplemental charge concerning that count of the indictment is academic, as the defendant was acquitted of count seven. Further, the defendant's argument that the court's supplemental charge concerning count seven operated to confuse the jury and may have affected their verdict as to count eight was not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. McKenzie, supra; People v. Leitzsey, supra). In any event, given, inter alia, the court's express direction to the jury that they consider the evidence as to each burglary separately, the contention is without merit ( see, People v Moody, 220 A.D.2d 460; People v. Lugo, 218 A.D.2d 711; People v Trama, 160 A.D.2d 748).
The court's conduct and remarks during trial did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944; People v. Casanova, 124 A.D.2d 813).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit ( see, People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388; People v. McKenzie, 173 A.D.2d 493).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.