Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant asserts that a portion of the charge in the nature of a predeliberation Allen instruction (see, Allen v United States, 164 U.S. 492), was unduly coercive, resulting in a deprivation of his right to a fair trial (see, People v Ali, 47 N.Y.2d 920). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court's predeliberation instruction did not deprive him of a fair trial. The defendant has not pointed to any coercive language (cf., Acunto v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 270 App. Div. 386). Indeed, the court stressed the importance of rendering a verdict which was founded on each individual juror's rational and independent assessment of the evidence (see, People v Rodriguez, 141 A.D.2d 382, 386). Finally, the court effectively conveyed the message that the emphasis throughout the proceeding should be on reason rather than emotion.
We have considered the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302). Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.