Opinion
March 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the course of the jury's deliberations in this case, the trial court received a note from a juror in which that juror complained of other jurors yelling at him and, further, that "[i]t seem[ed] like they want to beat me". In response thereto, the court gave the entire jury a lengthy supplemental instruction regarding, among other things, the need for all jurors to accord each other mutual respect while deliberating. The court further stressed that, inter alia, the deliberative process was a difficult one and was not to be "done in a climate in which any member of the jury feels physically threatened or intimidated or harassed in any way". The verdict of guilty was thereafter rendered. When the jury was polled, the subject juror embraced the verdict without equivocation.
"It has long been the law in this State that the trial court, in responding to jury inquiries, must give meaningful supplemental instructions" (People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301, cert denied 459 U.S. 847). In this instance, upon receipt of the juror's communication there arose an obligation on the part of the court to respond to it (see, People v. Lavender, 117 A.D.2d 253). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's response to the juror's note was meaningful and sufficiently addressed the problem which motivated the written communication (cf., People v. Rukaj, 123 A.D.2d 277; cf., People v. Lavender, supra). Moreover, since the juror's concerns were manifest in the note, there was no need for the court to interview the juror in formulating its response thereto (cf., People v. Tufano, 124 A.D.2d 688).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.