Opinion
February 2, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant failed to object at trial to the court's Sandoval ruling, his contention that the court erred in rendering an equivocal ruling is not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, the trial court's Sandoval ruling provided the defendant with sufficient information to make an informed decision as to whether or not to testify at trial ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371).
The defendant's contention that the trial court's Allen charges ( see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492) were coercive is unpreserved for appellate review. The defense counsel neither requested a specific charge nor objected to the charges that were given by the trial court ( see, People v. Cortez, 242 A.D.2d 338; People v. Marero, 208 A.D.2d 769). In any event, the record reveals that the supplemental instructions were neutral, that they were directed at the jurors in general, and that they did not coerce the jurors to reach a verdict or to achieve a specific result ( see, People v. Sims, 226 A.D.2d 564; People v. Marrero, supra; People v. Fleury, 177 A.D.2d 504).
Although the People failed to timely produce certain Rosario material ( see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286), reversal is not required since the delay did not substantially prejudice the defendant ( see, People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56)
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or academic ( see, People v. Williams, 165 A.D.2d 848).
O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.