Opinion
April 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Pursuant to the terms of the Criminal Procedure Law, a deliberating jury may be provided with "[a] written list prepared by the court containing the offenses submitted * * * and the possible verdicts thereon" (CPL 310.20; People v Sotomayer, 173 A.D.2d 500, lv granted 78 N.Y.2d 958). The instructions submitted to the jury on the verdict sheet, along with the offenses to be considered and the possible verdicts, were entirely neutral, and did not contain parenthetical references to the facts, portions of the oral charge, or any elements of the crimes charged (see, People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 589; People v Hedge, 162 A.D.2d 467; People v Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 736). Therefore, we find that the court's submission of the verdict sheet to the jury was not error (People v Melendez, 160 A.D.2d 739; People v Ribowsky, 156 A.D.2d 726, affd 77 N.Y.2d 284).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Eiber, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.