The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations.
Since defendant asked the court to assign the foreperson's duties to juror number two, rather than the first alternate, who had replaced the original foreperson after the jurors had been sworn, defendant waived his current objections. Although, under CPL 270.35, the first alternate should have replaced the discharged foreperson for all purposes (People v. Kellogg, 210 A.D.2d 912, 913, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 737; People v. Rosa, 122 Misc.2d 905), we find this irregularity to be waivable (see, People v. Agramonte, 87 N.Y.2d 765, 769-770; People v. Webb, 78 N.Y.2d 335, 338-339). In any event, the error could not have caused any prejudice to defendant because the law recognizes no special function for a foreperson except to speak for the jury (People v. Rosa, supra).
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Mazzarelli and Buckley, JJ.