DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Fryar, 276 A.D.2d 641). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( 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. Further, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
Moreover, contrary to the defendant's assertion, the trial court's direction to court personnel to tell the jury "No," in response to its request for a written version of the charges was ministerial in nature and did not require the presence of the defendant ( see People v. Dickens, 259 A.D.2d 450; People v. Buxton, 192 A.D.2d 289; People v. Bonaparte, 78 N.Y.2d 26).
The defendant's contention that the trial court's charge was inadequate is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Gurganious, 214 A.D.2d 681), and in any event, is without merit, since the charge was a correct statement of the law and there was no basis for concluding that the jury was unable to follow the trial court's instructions ( see People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 819; People v. Andujas, 79 N.Y.2d 113, 118).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.