Opinion
June 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing juror number eight to continue serving on the jury since the juror arrived while the court was still discussing her absence (see, CPL 270.35; People v. Pittman, 151 A.D.2d 985; People v McDonald, 143 A.D.2d 1050, 1051).
We find that the defendant's sentence is neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.