—Judgment, Su
Defendant contends that the trial court violated CPL 310.30 when it failed to respond to a jury note requesting instruction on the legal definition of criminal possession of stolen property before accepting a partial verdict on the grand larceny counts. This claim is unpreserved for this Court’s review and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that it would not warrant reversal inasmuch as defendant was not " ' "seriously prejudice]/!]” ’ ” by the court’s failure to respond to the note before accepting the verdict (People v Paul,
