Opinion
December 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.).
Defendant's claim that the trial court did not properly exercise its discretion in declining to have the defense summation read into the record at the jury's request is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 474). Were we to review the claim in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit. It is well settled that declining to read back a summation is not an abuse of discretion (People v Sullivan, 160 A.D.2d 161, 163, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991). Defendant's claim that the court did not give him "meaningful notice" of the jury's request prior to recalling the jury is also unpreserved for appellate review. (CPL 470.05.) Moreover, since an adequate record on this subject does not exist, appellate review is precluded (People v Charleston, 54 N.Y.2d 622); in any event, defendant's contention that the trial court failed to follow the procedures suggested in People v O'Rama ( 78 N.Y.2d 270, 277-278) is not supported by the record.
Further, in light of defendant's past record, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305-306.)
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.