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 determination, crediting the testimony of the ten-year-old complainant while rejecting the testimony of defendant.
The court had ample basis to conclude that the complainant understood the nature of an oath (CPL 60.20) and was competent to give sworn testimony ( People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450, 453; People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46). The court inquiry was appropriate and not, as claimed by defendant, dependent on the use of leading questions. Since a deliberating juror s note expressing a concern about returning to work was withdrawn, and the jury announced that it had reached a verdict, no inquiry was necessary. In any event, the court made an inquiry that was sufficient to ensure that the juror's concern could not have influenced his ability to deliberate fairly ( see, People v. Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.