Opinion
May 31, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While the defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial due to the actions of the trial court, we note that his consent to the conduct now complained of renders his argument unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bowles, 168 A.D.2d 562; CPL 470.05; cf., People v Mehmedi, 69 N.Y.2d 759). In any event, the actions of the trial court did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial. After personally admonishing the jurors against engaging in premature deliberations, and sending them to the jury room, the court during the charge conference, obtained the defendant's consent to the court officer's "let[ting] the jury go [and] * * * remind[ing] them of [the court's] admonitions". This delegation of a minor ministerial matter by the court neither affected the organization of the court nor the mode of proceedings prescribed by law (see, People v Bowles, supra; see also, People v Harris, 76 N.Y.2d 810; People v Torres, 72 N.Y.2d 1007). Accordingly the defendant's argument is unavailing.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.