Defendant was not prejudiced by the court's acceptance of a verdict without having responded to, or inquired about, a note from a deliberating juror indicating that another juror had not been properly participating in the deliberation process, and a note from the jury requesting a read back of certain testimony. In its subsequent note announcing that it had reached a verdict, the jury expressly withdrew the note requesting a read-back, and the fact that a verdict was reached carried the implication that any other problem had been resolved ( see, People v. Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963, 966-967; People v. Diaz, 254 A.D.2d 233; People v. Fuentes, 246 A.D.2d 474, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 941).
We conclude that the court's restrictions on defendant's cross-examination of a police witness could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.