Contrary to defendant's unpreserved "masked repuguancy" argument, the verdict convicting defendant of criminal contempt in the first degree was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not affected by the jury's inability to reach a verdict on an assault count ( see, People v. West, 233 A.D.2d 277, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 947). Defendant's prior acts of domestic violence against the complainant, resulting in the order of protection violated by defendant in this case, were properly admitted, with suitable limiting instructions, to provide necessary background information ( see, People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835). The court's Sandoval ruling, permitting elicitation of crimes committed against the same complainant, was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Weeks, 126 A.D.2d 857, 860). The announcement of the verdict by a juror other than the foreperson was a "ceremonial irregularity" rendered harmless by the restatement of the verdict when the entire jury was polled ( People v. Brown, 214 A.D.2d 579, 580, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 732; see also, People v. Rosa, 122 Misc.2d 905). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.