PEOPLE v. LEON RAMOS (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered March 12, 2004, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court's refusal to inquire, outside the jury's presence, about a conversation between two of the prosecution's witnesses, which occurred during a brief recess immediately after the first witness's testimony and just prior to the second witness's testimony.   This argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, 685, 512 N.Y.S.2d 16, 504 N.E.2d 383, cert. denied 482 U.S. 914, 107 S.Ct. 3185, 96 L.Ed.2d 673;  People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 473, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 407 N.E.2d 430;  People v. Jones, 284 A.D.2d 411, 726 N.Y.S.2d 283).   Moreover, the defendant abandoned that argument by cross-examining the second witness without inquiring about the subject conversation (see People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027, 630 N.Y.S.2d 972, 654 N.E.2d 1220;  cf. People v. Perdomo, 280 A.D.2d 617, 720 N.Y.S.2d 205).   In any event, the court's ruling was a provident exercise of its discretion.