Opinion
April 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that his rights were violated when the jury requested a readback of certain testimony, and the court either failed to respond or did so without notifying counsel. Since this claim rests on matters which are not contained in the record, its presentation on direct appeal is improper (see, People v Noland, 189 A.D.2d 829; People v Weinberg, 183 A.D.2d 930).
We find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.