Opinion
December 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the trial court committed reversible error when it discharged a sworn juror as unavailable and replaced him with an alternate juror, based on an ex parte communication between the court and the juror. Initially, we note that the defendant's claim, made for the first time on appeal, as to the sufficiency of the court's inquiry into the nature of the juror's unavailability, is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant's objection at trial made no mention of the sufficiency of the court's inquiry. Rather, the objection was based upon the juror being the only Italian-American on the panel. An objection on this ground was inadequate to alert the court to the current claim (see, CPL 470.05; People v Qualls, 55 N.Y.2d 733, 734; People v Peters, 175 A.D.2d 220, 221).
In any event, the record reveals that the discharged juror informed the court, prior to the conclusion of the defendant's evidence, that his wife was to undergo surgery and he would thus be unavailable for two days. The court placed this information on the record and replaced the juror with an alternate, over the defendant's objection. Under the circumstances, the discharge of the juror constituted a proper exercise of the court's discretion (see, People v Delgado, 187 A.D.2d 447; People v DeMatteis, 186 A.D.2d 460, 461; People v Hill, 182 A.D.2d 640, 641; People v Weiler, 194 A.D.2d 894).
The defendant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the victim's wounds constituted serious physical injury pursuant to Penal Law § 10.00 (10). We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim's own testimony as well as that of the Emergency Medical Technician and the uncontroverted evidence of the People's medical expert that the wounds, if left untreated, were "life-threatening", is sufficient to support the jury's verdict (see, People v Ross, 125 A.D.2d 422; People v Griffin, 100 A.D.2d 659, 660-661; accord, People v Perron, 172 A.D.2d 879, 880). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.