People v. Canty

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court’s supplemental instruction to the jury was coercive (see, Allen v United States, 164 US 492, 501-502; People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725, 727). The court’s charge, read in its entirety, did not coerce or compel the jury to reach a verdict (see, People v Williams, 210 AD2d 966, lv denied 85 *906NY2d 982; People v Novak, 179 AD2d 1053, lv denied 79 NY2d 922). Nor was it coercive for the court to inform the jury that hotel accommodations had been made and that "the reasonable thing to do” was to stay…