Opinion
February 16, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant contends that the trial court's charge as to circumstantial evidence did not adequately convey the appropriate law to the jury. However, inasmuch as no objection was raised to this portion of the charge, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v Pinnero, 125 A.D.2d 421, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 884). In any event, the instruction in question apprised the jury of the correct standard to be applied in evaluating circumstantial evidence (see, People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441-442; People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024).
The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in replacing a tardy juror with the first alternate (see, CPL 270.35). The matter has not been preserved for our review because of a failure to object at the time of replacement (see, People v Burns, 118 A.D.2d 864, 865; People v Pierce, 97 A.D.2d 904, 905).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including her claim that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and excessive, and conclude that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.