Judgment affirmed.
Defendant argues that the trial court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. After approximately seven hours of deliberation, without a verdict, the jury foreman reported that he believed the jury would remain unable to reach a decision. The trial court then gave the jury a so-called "Allen" charge, urging the importance of the jury reaching a verdict. Such a charge is proper provided it does not urge that (1) a dissenting juror abandon his own conviction and join in the opinion of other jurors, (2) attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict ( People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256), or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict ( People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660; see, People v. Randall, 9 N.Y.2d 413; People v. Sharff, 45 A.D.2d 666, affd 38 N.Y.2d 751; 1 Charges to Jury Crim Case § 2.38 [rev ed]; 1 CJI 42.60, at 1019). The charge at bar was free of these errors. Moreover, "[i]t is well established that the determination of how long a disagreeing jury will be kept together and required to continue their deliberation is a matter of sound judicial discretion which, in the absence of abuse, will not be disturbed" ( People v. Presley, 22 A.D.2d 151, 154, affd 16 N.Y.2d 738).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Connor, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.