Opinion
April 24, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court's response to the jury's request for a readback of the bulk of the trial testimony constituted an abuse of discretion. This contention was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, no error was committed (see, CPL 310.30; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296; cf., People v. Andino, 113 A.D.2d 944; People v. Arcarola, 96 A.D.2d 1081). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.