PEOPLE v. BRADLEY (1999)

County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying without a hearing defendant's motion to set aside the verdict based upon alleged juror misconduct (see, CPL 330.30[2] ), where the motion was supported only by a juror's hearsay account of another juror's statements during deliberations (see, People v. Hentley, 155 A.D.2d 392, 393, 547 N.Y.S.2d 876, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 919, 555 N.Y.S.2d 38, 554 N.E.2d 75;  People v. Morales, 121 A.D.2d 240, 241-242, 503 N.Y.S.2d 374).   The court properly denied defendant's request to discharge a sworn juror and replace him with an alternate (see, CPL 270.35).   We reject defendant's contention that reversal is warranted because of improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation (see, People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court did not comply with the procedures of CPL 400.20 (see, People v. Proctor, 79 N.Y.2d 992, 584 N.Y.S.2d 435, 594 N.E.2d 929), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).  The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: