Opinion
August 18, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the trial court's second and third Allen charges ( see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492) were coercive. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant never objected to the court's charges as given ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Marero, 208 A.D.2d 769). In any event, the court's Allen charges were balanced and not coercive ( see, People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725; People v. Sims, 226 A.D.2d 564; People v. Fluery, 177 A.D.2d 504).
The defendant further contends that the court pressured the jurors into reaching a verdict by forcing them to continue their deliberations until they reached agreement. This claim lacks merit. The determination as to how long jurors in disagreement will be kept together and required to continue deliberations is a matter of sound judicial discretion which, if not improvidently exercised, will not be disturbed ( see, People v Johnson, 224 A.D.2d 635). In the present case, the record indicates that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion ( see, People v. Adams, 123 A.D.2d 355).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.