Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his present claim that the court's response to a juror's oral inquiry was inaccurate and prejudicial, since he failed to raise to the trial court the specific ground he now raises on this appeal ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642; see also, People v Stewart, 81 NY2d 877, 878-879; cf., People v DeRosario, 81 NY2d 801, 803). In any event, the trial court's response to the juror's oral inquiry does not warrant reversal as the defendant was not prejudiced thereby ( see, People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 967; People v Austin, 199 AD2d 325, 326; People v Beckham, 11A AD2d 748, 750; People v Nevins, 178 AD2d 107, 108).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in dismissing, sua sponte, a prospective juror who was having great difficulty understanding the court's questions ( see, People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 379; People v Mitchell, 224 AD2d 316; People v Scruggs, 201 AD2d 514, 515; see also, People v Decker, 157 NY 186, 190-191; People v Torres, 164 AD2d 923, 924; People v Little, 57 Misc 2d 1059, 1061).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.