Opinion
August 5, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Charde, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed or, alternatively, a reconstruction hearing should be held because of the unavailability of a portion of the trial transcript containing readbacks of the complaining witness's testimony to the jury.
It is well established that the mere unavailability of a portion of the trial transcript does not require reversal and that the defendant must set forth the nature of the issues that would have been raised on appeal had the minutes been available (see, People v Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283; People v Rivera, 39 N.Y.2d 519; People v Bell, 36 A.D.2d 406, affd 29 N.Y.2d 882; People v Acevedo, 104 A.D.2d 946). The defendant failed to raise any appealable issues. He merely alleges that the missing transcript is "crucial" to appellate review. Therefore, he is not entitled to a reversal of his judgment of conviction (see, People v Bell, supra). Nor is there any need for a reconstruction hearing. Those portions of the record which were read back to the jury are readily discernible from the record on appeal. Moreover, the defendant does not allege that the requested testimony was not read back or that the readback was in some way inaccurate or erroneous. Under these circumstances, the defendant has not been prejudiced in presenting his case and he has not been deprived of an effective appeal (see, People v Glass, supra; People v Acevedo, supra).
The defendant's sentence is in all respects proper (see, Penal Law § 70.06; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, does not warrant reversal. Mangano, P.J., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.