Opinion
July 3, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred when it omitted the statutory definitions of "deprive" and "appropriate" (Penal Law § 155.00, [4]) from its supplemental instructions to the jury on the grand larceny charges has not been preserved for appellate review in that no objection was made thereto, nor was a request for a more amplified instruction made (see, CPL 470.05; People v Burnice, 112 A.D.2d 642; People v Robinson, 103 A.D.2d 852). In any event, the court's supplemental instruction was fully responsive to the jury's inquiry, and as a whole was not prejudicial to the defendant (see, People v Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126; People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296; People v Shakur, 144 A.D.2d 600). Finally, in contrast to those cases cited by the defendant, here the jury was provided with the appropriate definitions in the original charge and thus the concept of "permanency" as employed in the definitions of "deprive" and "appropriate" was already before it (see, People v Ward, 120 A.D.2d 758; People v Monahan, 103 A.D.2d 833). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.