Opinion
December 4, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that a letter received by the court from Juror No. 3 after the rendition of the verdict indicated that he was grossly unqualified to serve is not properly before this Court, since the defendant failed to move to set aside the verdict on this ground (see, CPL 330.30; see also, People v Irizarry, 83 N.Y.2d 557). Further, the defendant's reliance on CPL 270.35 in support of his position is misplaced, in that this section only applies to allegations of juror misconduct which are made known before the verdict is rendered (see, People v Rodriguez, 71 N.Y.2d 214, 218). In any event, there is nothing in the record indicating that Juror No. 3 was grossly unqualified to decide the defendant's case fairly, or that he engaged in misconduct of any kind (see, People v Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 298). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Krausman, JJ., concur.