Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On Thursday morning, just prior to closing arguments, Juror Number Four telephoned the court and indicated that he had an abscessed tooth, and that he could not come in, on that day or the next, but "might" be able to come in on Monday. Since the length of the juror's absence was not fully ascertainable, but would be at least four days, the court properly denied the defendant's request to adjourn the trial until the juror was able to return and instead seated an alternate juror (see, People v Washington, 72 N.Y.2d 69; People v Lee, 155 A.D.2d 483; People v McDonald, 143 A.D.2d 1050; People v Lawrence, 143 A.D.2d 1045).
Further, in marshaling the evidence, the court did not summarize the evidence in an uneven or prejudicial manner (see, People v Roman, 149 A.D.2d 305, 306). Nor did it suggest an opinion to the jury (see, People v Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116). We also find that the court's charge on burden of proof and reasonable doubt, when taken as a whole, properly conveyed the correct standard (see, People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881, 882; People v Fisher, 112 A.D.2d 378).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.