Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Richard GONZALEZ, appellant.

Decided: December 27, 2004

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mae C. Quinn of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered March 4, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in discharging a missing juror without conducting a “reasonably thorough inquiry” into his whereabouts or waiting for two hours from the time set for trial (CPL 270.35[2][a] ).   The defendant's claim is not preserved for appellate review because the defense counsel did not specifically object to the sufficiency of the court's inquiry or state that the court had not waited a sufficient period of time before discharging the juror (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Peters, 175 A.D.2d 220, 221, 572 N.Y.S.2d 81;  cf. People v. Jeanty, 94 N.Y.2d 507, 514, 706 N.Y.S.2d 683, 727 N.E.2d 1237;  People v. Jackson, 149 A.D.2d 532, 533, 539 N.Y.S.2d 997).   Under the circumstances, we decline to review the defendant's contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Copied to clipboard