Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the Allen instructions ( Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492) given to the: jury, which twice sent notes to the Trial Judge stating that it was deadlocked, were coercive. This contention is not preserved for appellate review, as the defendant neither requested a specific charge nor objected to the charge suggested and ultimately given by the court ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Velez, 150 A.D.2d 514). In any event, the instructions were proper. Allen instructions are proper if they assist a jury in its deliberation by stressing the importance of reaching a verdict without forcing any juror to yield a conscientious belief ( see, People v. Ali, 65 A.D.2d 513, affd 47 N.Y.2d 920). The instructions given in his case neither asked the jurors to abandon their own convictions, nor shamed them into reaching a verdict ( see, People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691; People v. Austin, 168 A.D.2d 502). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Trial Judge did not create a coercive climate merely by mentioning possible sequestration in an innocuous manner ( see, People v. Sharff 38 N.Y.2d 751). Thus, the Allen charge, viewed as a whole, was appropriate.
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.