Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the court's delay in responding to a jury note severely prejudiced him ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Morse, 182 A.D.2d 781; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 251). In any event, the court responded meaningfully to the jury's request ( see, CPL 310.30; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302; People v Almovodar, 62 N.Y.2d 126) by providing it with the physical evidence requested and by gathering the transcripts of the testimony requested. In light of the note signed by the foreperson indicating that the testimony was no longer necessary, it is apparent that the jury "sought to resolve a factual question which it could competently resolve itself" ( People v Carrero, 140 A.D.2d 533, 534), and that the jury was able to "resolve the apparent factual question among its members" upon reviewing the physical evidence ( People v. Chandler, 110 A.D.2d 970, 971; see, People v. Elie, 150 A.D.2d 719; People v. Sturgis, 124 A.D.2d 1045). Moreover, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any "serious prejudice" resulting from the court's permitting the jury to determine that it no longer required the requested testimony ( see, People v. Lourido, 70 N.Y.2d 428, 435; People v Razack, 196 A.D.2d 897).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Ritter, J.P., Thompson, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.