The court's conduct did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. Its rulings throughout the trial were appropriate and designed to do no more than "enforce propriety, orderliness, decorum and expedition in [the] trial" (People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523; see also People v. White, 213 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 981). The court's admonitions to defense counsel were brought about by counsel's own conduct, including asking improper questions, ignoring the court's rulings, making sarcastic and disrespectful comments to the court in the jury's presence, and arguing with the court (see People v. Bellamy, 248 A.D.2d 252, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 878; People v. Grant, 184 A.D.2d 729,lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 840). Moreover, any prejudice to defendant was prevented by the court's charge to the jury (see People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 210).
During jury selection, the court properly exercised its discretion when, after dismissing one potential juror for cause based on his distasteful prior experience as a juror, the court declined to inquire of other potential jurors whether the dismissed juror had discussed his negative experience with them. There is no indication in the record or reason to believe that any such conversations ever took place.
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable time limits on consultations between defendant and counsel concerning the exercise of peremptory challenges (see People v. Davis, 224 A.D.2d 324,lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 846; see also People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.