Opinion
June 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the representation received by defendant, viewed in its entirety, was meaningful (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v Trait, 139 A.D.2d 937, 938, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 867). Defendant further contends that errors in Supreme Court's instructions to the jury mandate reversal. Because no objection was made to those instructions, any error has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). In any event, the court's instructions, as a whole, conveyed the proper rules to be applied by the jury (see, People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 831-832; People v. Clark, 190 A.D.2d 989, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 968), and the court's supplemental instruction did not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict (see, e.g., People v. Sharff, 38 N.Y.2d 751; People v. Glover, 165 A.D.2d 761, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Ford, 155 A.D.2d 863, affd 76 N.Y.2d 868; People v Lilley, 141 A.D.2d 849).