Opinion
January 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
Defendant's claim that the trial court failed to give proper notice of a jury note requesting instructions is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, no objection having been made when the note was read aloud and answered in the presence of counsel and the jury ( People v Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 516), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant's request for a three-hour mid-trial adjournment to secure the attendance of a witness who had been charged with a misdemeanor as part of the same transaction, and who had previously invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, was properly denied, based as it was on the highly speculative notion that the witness would visit the Criminal Court, secure a final disposition of his own case, and be ready to testify within three hours ( cf., People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.