Defendant's request, made through trial counsel, for a Friday adjournment of jury deliberations, should those deliberations continue beyond Thursday, in order that defendant might attend religious services scheduled at Rikers Island for Friday afternoon, was properly denied by the trial court after due consideration of the rights of all concerned parties. While strong constitutional guarantees exist for the protection of religious activities, an incidental burden on the free exercise of religion may be justified by a compelling State interest within the regulatory power of the State (see, Sherbert v Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403). Here, where the jury had already been sequestered for two days, the granting of the requested adjournment would have substantially jeopardized "the State's paramount duty to insure a fair trial in a criminal action for both defendant and the People" (La Rocca v. Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 577, cert denied 424 U.S. 968). Although defense counsel indicated to the trial court that he would discuss the matter further with defendant, no alternative proposition was presented to the court. Thus, while "[t]he state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest" (Thomas v Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718), no less restrictive means to achieve the compelling State interest of a fair trial for both defendant and the People was suggested by the defendant.

We find no abuse of discretion in sentencing herein.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.