Opinion
October 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
By failing to request transcription of the voir dire of prospective jurors, defendant Pang waived such transcription ( see, People v. Byrne, 239 A.D.2d 107; People v. Owens, 235 A.D.2d 268, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 896), and, in any event, Pang was not prejudiced by the absence of the voir dire record ( see, People v. Harrison, 85 N.Y.2d 794, 796).
Defendant Pang's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the trial court's alleged excessive intervention in the trial and biased remarks toward his attorney in open court is not preserved for review ( see, People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to address the issue, we would find that the court's remarks do not warrant reversal.
Pang's claim that the court improperly delegated a judicial function was expressly waived. There was no violation of the mode of proceedings prescribed by law because the act of sending the court officer to give the jury specific information was, under the circumstances, ministerial in nature ( see, People v. McPhatter, 235 A.D.2d 233, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1038; People v. Roldan, 173 A.D.2d 233, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 926).
Defendant's claims relating to alleged jury misconduct, the court's inquiry on that subject, and the denial of defendant's CPL 330.30 motions are similar to those rejected on a codefendant's appeal ( see, People v. Shao Ying Pan, 245 A.D.2d 149, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 977). The instant defendant's claims suffer from the same procedural and substantive defects as those of co-defendant Pan, and we see no reason to reach any different result herein. Defendant Li's original and renewed CPL 440.10 motions added nothing of significance to the speculative claims he previously raised, and those motions were properly denied.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.