Opinion
June 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriero, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court erred in ruling that a memo book prepared by a police officer in the regular course of his business was not admissible as evidence (see, CPL 60.10; CPLR 4518; Bracco v MABSTOA, 117 A.D.2d 273; see also, People v. Kennedy, 68 N.Y.2d 569; People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d 136; People v. Ferone, 136 A.D.2d 282). However, by virtue of his reference to this document during his cross-examination of this police officer, the defense counsel was able to convey to the jury a sense of what the memo book contained, and, more importantly, what it did not contain. Considering this circumstance, and in light of the overwhelming quality of the evidence, we conclude that the court's error in this respect was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Adams, 72 A.D.2d 156).
The trial court advised the jurors, during a break in their deliberations, that they would be sent to dinner and then to a hotel if, within a stated period of time, they had not yet arrived at a verdict. On appeal, the defendant argues that, by placing before them the prospect of an evening meal and hotel accommodations for the night, the trial court in effect coerced the jurors into accelerating their deliberations. This argument is without merit (see, People v. Sharff, 38 N.Y.2d 751, 753; People v. Kincaid, 9 A.D.2d 954; see also, People v. Velasquez, 178 A.D.2d 451; People v. Boyd, 150 A.D.2d 786). Bracken, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.