People v. Houseman

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that reversal is required because County Court’s remarks to the jury during deliberations coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. No objection was made to the court’s statements to the jury and, therefore, that issue has not been preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Eske, 185 AD2d 328). In any event, the court’s instructions to the jury during deliberations advising it of the possibility of sequestration were neutral, non-coercive and proper (see, People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725, 726-727; People v Sharff, 38 NY2d 751,…