Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial and his right to a trial by jury because of the trial court's failure to respond meaningfully to notes from the jury. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review since defense counsel was given notice of the contents of the jury notes and had knowledge of the substance of the court's intended response but failed to raise a timely objection ( see, People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 609, 516; CPL 470.05; People v. Johnson, 224 A.D.2d 635; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 251).
In any event, while it is true that the court is required to respond meaningfully to a request by the jury for information or instructions ( see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302), a failure to comply does not constitute reversible error absent a showing of serious prejudice ( see, People v. Lourido, 70 N.Y.2d 428, 435; People v. Miller, 6 N.Y.2d 152; People v. Razack, 196 A.D.2d 897, 898). Our review of the record indicates that there was not a showing of serious prejudice.
Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.