People v. Gueye, 2006-11193

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 994 N.Y.S.2d 683,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07682,122 A.D.3d 768
• Docket Number: 2006-11193
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Khadim GUEYE, appellant.
• Decision Date: 12 November 2014

122 A.D.3d 768
994 N.Y.S.2d 683
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07682

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Khadim GUEYE, appellant.

2006-11193

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

Nov. 12, 2014.

994 N.Y.S.2d 684

Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Daniel Bresnahan of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

122 A.D.3d 768

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered October 23, 2006, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court improperly discharged a sworn juror and replaced him with an alternate. The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court did not make a “reasonably thorough inquiry” (CPL 270.35[2][a] ) into the unavailability of the juror, because he did not object to the sufficiency of the court's inquiry or request that any further inquiry be made (see People v. King, 110 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 973 N.Y.S.2d 353, lv. granted 23 N.Y.3d 1022, 992 N.Y.S.2d 804, 16 N.E.3d 1284 ; People v. Morales, 87 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 930 N.Y.S.2d 454 ; People v. Settles, 28 A.D.3d 591, 591, 813 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court conducted a reasonably thorough inquiry into the juror's unavailability and providently exercised its discretion in replacing the juror after determining that the juror would not appear within the two-hour time period set forth in CPL 270.35(2) (see People v. Jeanty, 94 N.Y.2d 507, 706 N.Y.S.2d 683, 727 N.E.2d 1237 ). The defendant's constitutional claim on this...