Opinion
January 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lane, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by responding to a jury note requesting the definition of the term to "enter" a dwelling, by adapting the definition set forth in a prior legal opinion. However, a trial court may quote from prior opinions "where the quoted language artfully expresses general and well-recognized legal principles" (People v. Hommel, 41 N.Y.2d 427, 429). We find that the court properly chose to respond to the jury's request for information (see, CPL 310.30), and that its response to the jury note was not error (see, People v King, 61 N.Y.2d 550).
We note that the screwdriver introduced into evidence at the trial did little to reinforce the eyewitness's testimony regarding the defendant's involvement in the burglary and his subsequent in-court identification of the defendant. Under the circumstances, any alleged error surrounding the introduction of the physical evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Shipman, 156 A.D.2d 494; People v. Natal, 144 A.D.2d 587, affd 75 N.Y.2d 379, cert denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 169).
We find that the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to address them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kunzeman, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.