Opinion
December 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
At the reconstruction hearing, both the prosecutor and the defense counsel testified that the defendant was in fact present during the Sandoval hearing. Accordingly, the defendant's contentions to the contrary are unavailing.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by permitting a detective to testify generally as to what a buy and bust operation is and what the police officers' roles are in such an operation, as it assisted the jury in understanding their testimony with respect to this operation and their actions leading up to the defendant's arrest ( see, People v Kane, 207 A.D.2d 846; People v Williams, 204 A.D.2d 183).
Moreover, the record reveals, contrary to the defendant's contention, that the trial court's statements, which merely informed the jurors in an impartial and neutral manner that they would be sequestered for the evening, did not constitute, under the circumstances, an attempt to coerce or compel the jury to reach a prompt verdict ( see, People v Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725; People v Sharff, 38 N.Y.2d 751; People v Kim, 206 A.D.2d 540).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.