When determining a motion to set aside a jury verdict based upon juror misconduct, "the facts must be examined to determine the nature of the material placed before the jury and the likelihood that prejudice would be engendered" (People v Brown, 48 NY2d 388, 394; see People v Maragh, 94 NY2d 569, 573-574). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the material that was improperly placed before the jury in this case created a substantial risk of prejudice to the rights of the defendant (see People v Giarletta, 72 AD3d 838; People v Romano, 8 AD3d 503; People v Cepeda, 251 AD2d 343; People v Huntley, 87 AD2d 488, affd 59 NY2d 868; see also Parker v Gladden, 385 US 363; People v Maragh, 94 NY2d 569). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the court should have granted the defendant's motion to set aside the jury verdict. Consequently, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Although the Supreme Court found, at the conclusion of the hearing, that juror misconduct had occurred during deliberations, it determined that in view of the nature of the outside information disseminated, the defendant had not been prejudiced. When determining a motion to set aside a jury verdict based upon juror misconduct, "the facts must be examined to determine the nature of the material placed before the jury and the likelihood that prejudice would be engendered" (People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 394, 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51 ; see People v. Maragh, 94 N.Y.2d 569, 573–574, 708 N.Y.S.2d 44, 729 N.E.2d 701 ). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the material that was improperly placed before the jury in this case created a substantial risk of prejudice to the rights of the defendant (see People v. Giarletta, 72 A.D.3d 838, 898 N.Y.S.2d 639 ; People v. Romano, 8 A.D.3d 503, 778 N.Y.S.2d 517 ; People v. Cepeda, 251 A.D.2d 343, 674 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; People v. Huntley, 87 A.D.2d 488, 452 N.Y.S.2d 952, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 868, 465 N.Y.S.2d 929, 452 N.E.2d 1257 ; see also Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 87 S.Ct. 468, 17 L.Ed.2d 420 ; People v. Maragh, 94 N.Y.2d 569, 708 N.Y.S.2d 44, 729 N.E.2d 701 ). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the court should have granted the defendant's motion to set aside the jury verdict.

Contrary to the People's contention, the testimony at the hearing was not speculative. Rather, several jurors and an alternate juror testified about their participation in and direct observations of the misconduct. There is no basis to disturb the court's fact-findings and credibility determinations, which are entitled to great deference on appeal ( see People v. Gordon, 242 A.D.2d 640). The court properly concluded that the cumulative effect of the misconduct "created a substantial risk of prejudice to the rights of the defendant" ( People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 394; see People v. Cepeda, 251 A.D.2d 343). Consequently, the court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to set aside the jury verdict ( see CPL 330.30).