Similarly, any possible contamination resulting from the police officer's alleged mishandling of the evidence went to the weight rather than to the admissibility of the evidence (seePeople v. Ortiz , 80 A.D.3d 628, 630, 914 N.Y.S.2d 281 ). Inasmuch as the defendant made an application to discharge a prospective juror, he cannot now be heard to complain, as he does in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court should not have granted that application and discharged that prospective juror (seePeople v. Ogletree , 172 A.D.3d 754, 754, 97 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; People v. Thomas , 129 A.D.3d 1110, 1110, 10 N.Y.S.3d 461 ; People v. Kessler , 122 A.D.3d 1402, 1404–1405, 996 N.Y.S.2d 836 ). Similarly, since defense counsel consented to the Supreme Court's proposed charge of kidnapping in the first degree (see Penal Law § 135.25[2][a] ), the defendant cannot be heard to complain, as he does in his pro se supplemental brief, that the court's charge was improper.