Opinion
August 25, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Initially, we find no merit to the defendant's argument, raised in his supplemental brief, that it was error to remit this matter for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether the defense counsel consented to the use of certain parenthetical phrases in the verdict sheet. The hearing was necessary under the circumstances of this case (see, e.g., People v. Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872), and contrary to the defendant's contentions, nothing in the decisions of the Court of Appeals in People v. Maher ( 89 N.Y.2d 318) or People v. Damiano ( 87 N.Y.2d 477) indicates that such a hearing was improper.
The evidence at the reconstruction hearing supports the Supreme Court's finding that the defense counsel consented to the submission of the annotated verdict sheet (cf., People v. Damiano, supra). We note that People v. Damiano was effectively overruled in part by the recent amendment to CPL 310.20, which applies to trials commencing on or after October 4, 1996 (L 1996, ch 630, § 3), and that the amendment is not applicable to this case.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.