Opinion
June 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's charge on accessorial liability was not erroneous. The charge, which was, in part, taken verbatim from Penal Law § 20.00, clearly conveyed to the jury that the defendant must have possessed the mental culpability required for the crimes charged and that his conduct must have been intentional and knowing ( see, People v. Jordan, 187 A.D.2d 731; People v. Wise, 135 A.D.2d 593; People v. Newton, 120 A.D.2d 751).
Similarly without merit is the defendant's contention that the trial court failed to properly respond to notes in which the jury requested readbacks of testimony. "It was well within the court's discretion to have asked the jury what portion of the testimony it wanted read back and for the jury to indicate when it had heard enough" ( People v. Gadson, 161 A.D.2d 795, 796; see also, People v. Rodriguez, 154 A.D.2d 488; People v. Charkow, 142 A.D.2d 734). Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the court did not meaningfully respond to the jury's request ( see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.