Opinion
December 19, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant contends, among other things, that the Supreme Court erred in its supplemental instruction to the jury by failing to charge that mere presence in an automobile does not, by itself, constitute possession of the automobile. We disagree. The court's supplemental charge to the jury fully responded to the jury's inquiry, and it was not prejudicial to the defendant (see, People v Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126; People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296). Furthermore, the court instructed the jury in its initial charge that mere presence in an automobile does not constitute possession of the automobile. Thus, this information was before the jury (see, People v Andre, 152 A.D.2d 589).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.