Defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror was properly denied. Viewing the panelist's responses as a whole, we conclude that his statements did not raise a serious doubt about his ability to be fair, and that, in any event, the court made a thorough inquiry of the panelist and obtained an unequivocal assurance of impartiality (see, People v. Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358; People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600).
The court properly exercised its discretion in declining defendant's request for a mistrial or for individual inquiries of each member of the jury concerning alleged juror misconduct during trial. The totally innocuous incident in question had nothing to do with the jury's evaluation of the evidence, and the court's instructions to the entire jury and its inquiries of those jurors who came forward in response to those instructions were sufficient to address any possibility of prejudice (see, People v. Velez, 222 A.D.2d 539, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 978).
We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.