Opinion
January 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the trial court improperly ordered all spectators, except members of the press, excluded from the courtroom during reargument of his motion to set aside the verdict.
Although counsel for one of the codefendants raised an objection to the ruling by the court, the defendant's counsel did not. Accordingly, the defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Davis, 151 A.D.2d 494). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the trial court's attempt to preserve order and decorum in its courtroom was improper (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71; see also, People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409).
The defendant's assertion that the trial court improperly denied his motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of alleged juror misconduct has been considered and rejected by this court on the appeals of three of the codefendants (see, People v Davis, 151 A.D.2d 494, supra; People v. Taylor, 131 A.D.2d 708; People v. Bryant, 123 A.D.2d 436). The defendant has not raised any argument requiring a different result herein.
The defendant further claims that the trial court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings when it questioned the Medical Examiner with respect to the cause of the death of the decedent. The defendant's counsel did not object to the questioning and hence the issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Davis, 151 A.D.2d 494, supra; see also, People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886). In any event, the record indicates that the trial court's questioning of the Medical Examiner was neither excessive nor partial but merely served to clarify the testimony and to insure that the jury understood the evidence presented (see, People v. Robinson, 137 A.D.2d 564; People v. Dunlap, 119 A.D.2d 766; People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 56).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including his claim that his sentence was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Brown and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.