During trial, the court excused the jury for 30 minutes, after admonishing the jurors against premature deliberations, while the court and counsel discussed an imminent holiday recess. With the express consent of both counsel, the court directed a court officer to advise the jurors to return after the weekend, and to remind them of the court's prior admonitions. Delegation of this minor ministerial matter did not constitute an improper delegation of judicial authority and did not require defendant's presence (see, People v. Bonaparte, 78 N.Y.2d 26, 31; People v. Bowles, 168 A.D.2d 562, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 953). "There is no indication in the record that the officer did anything more than he was asked to do" (People v. Sarasti, 228 A.D.2d 624, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 994), and the record sufficiently establishes that the court officer's communications with the jury were ministerial rather than substantive in nature (compare, People v. Mendez, 208 A.D.2d 358).
We find defendant's sentence excessive to the extent indicated.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claim.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.