Opinion
December 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.).
Defendant's claim that the jury's verdict should not have been accepted without inquiry when a juror showed great reluctance to enter the courtroom for the rendition of the verdict is unpreserved as a matter of law ( see, People v Albert, 85 N.Y.2d 851, affg 206 A.D.2d 320), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that nothing in the juror's behavior suggested duress. Nothing more was required after the court polled each juror to determine if the guilty verdict was unanimous and the juror in question responded twice that he had voted to convict ( see, People v Maddox, 139 A.D.2d 597, 598, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 862; compare, People v Pickett, 61 N.Y.2d 773).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.