Opinion
December 24, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Berkowitz, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
Defendants' convictions stem from a vicious attack upon a passenger near a subway station. The entire incident was witnessed by an experienced plainclothes police officer who arrested defendants moments later, at which time the defendants were found to be in possession of property taken from the victim.
During the course of the jury's deliberations, it sent a note to the court requesting that the summation of one of the defense attorneys be reread. The Trial Judge declined to do so.
Inasmuch as summations are not evidence ( United States v Guanti, 421 F.2d 792, 801, cert den sub nom. Romano v. United States, 400 U.S. 832), the Trial Judge's determination cannot be said to be an improvident exercise of discretion warranting reversal (CPL 310.30; United States v. Guanti, supra, p 801; cf. People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301-302, cert den 459 U.S. 847; People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 410, cert den 449 U.S. 1087). Moreover, failure to comply with a jury's request is not per se reversible error, absent a showing of prejudice ( People v Jackson, 20 N.Y.2d 440, 454, cert den 391 U.S. 928; People v Perez, 54 A.D.2d 1009). Other than vague generalities, no such tender has been made here.
We have considered defendants' other arguments to the extent that they have been preserved for appellate review, and find them meritless. Titone, J.P., Mangano, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.