Opinion
January 28, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Kepner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues, as did his father and codefendant (see, People v Donati, 169 A.D.2d 837 [decided herewith]), that the trial court's supplemental instructions to the jury were inadequate. We do not agree. Here, the jury asked for a repetition of the legal definitions of parts of the indictment, and the court responded by re-reading its earlier instructions which defined these crimes. The mere fact that the court relied on its prior instructions in responding to the jury's request for supplemental instructions does not constitute reversible error where, as here, there was no showing that the jury was perplexed or confused after the repeated instructions (see, People v Dawkins, 151 A.D.2d 495).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Donati, supra). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.