The jury was further told that it would most likely not be sequestered. Contrary to defendant's argument, the record reveals that Supreme Court's remarks, when read as a whole, were proper (see, e.g., People v. Alvarez, 86 N.Y.2d 761; People v. Price, 188 A.D.2d 681, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 891). Also, there is no basis to support the contention that the court's statement was coercive or prejudicial to defendant (see, People v. Davis, 259 A.D.2d 627, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 923; People v. Canty, 237 A.D.2d 905, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 856; People v. Coleman, 235 A.D.2d 928, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1033; People v. Baxter, 232 A.D.2d 196, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 939). We have considered and found defendant's remaining contentions to be lacking in merit.