Opinion
June 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.).
While it is clearly preferred, a contemporaneous, verbatim record of the jury selection process is not a prerequisite to appellate review so long as the record is sufficiently complete to allow such review (People v. Brown, 202 A.D.2d 266; cf., People v. Fearon, 13 N.Y.2d 59). Where defense counsel was permitted at least three opportunities to make a full record of any objections to either comments by the prosecutor or rulings by the court during jury selection, the record is sufficient. The one objection raised by defendant concerning a comment by the prosecutor is meritless.
Based on testimony of the two undercover officers, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that testifying in an open courtroom might endanger their safety (People v Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436).
Defendant failed to object to the court's adverse inference charge and, thus, his claim is not preserved (People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the charge, as we have previously stated, was "lengthier than it should have been" but "was not facially incorrect and did not imply to the jury that defendant should have testified" (People v. Jones, 200 A.D.2d 441).
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rubin and Williams, JJ.