The court's replacement of a sworn juror over defense objection was a proper exercise of discretion (People v Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69, 73). The court personally communicated by telephone with the juror, who could not satisfactorily explain his two-day absence nor give any assurance that he would return on the next, or third day, or at any other time. These facts, along with the early stage of the trial and inconvenience to child witnesses, justified replacement of the juror (People v Thomas, 200 A.D.2d 419, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 877).
The court properly determined that a seven-year-old child had the capacity to be sworn (People v Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560, 566). Without resort to leading questions, the court was able to ascertain the child's comprehension of the duty to tell the truth in court and the consequences of breaking a pledge to do so, rendering immaterial the child's inability to define terms such as "oath" (People v Mercado, 157 A.D.2d 457, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 922).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.