People v. GrantPeople v. Grant
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings pursuant to
We reject the defendant‘s contention that the prosecutor violated the trial court‘s ruling, in effect, pursuant to
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that the jury should be required to continue deliberations following jury notes expressing an inability to reach a verdict (see People v Dacus, 215 AD2d 578, 579 [1995]; People v Bastien, 180 AD2d 691, 692 [1992]). To the extent the defendant contends that the court erred in accepting a partial verdict, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Urbaniak, 70 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2010]), and, in any event, without merit (see
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.