| People v Prokop |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 08285 [155 AD3d 975] |
| November 22, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Zenon Prokop, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Joseph Z. Amsel of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis,J.), rendered February 6, 2015, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under theinfluence of alcohol and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erroneously charged the jury as to theelements of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995];People v Callistro, 146 AD3d795, 796 [2017]). In any event, that charge, which was consistent with the stipulation of theparties, was not erroneous (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [2] [a] [iv];[3] [a] [i]; see also CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28, 33-34 [2006]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprivedof his due process rights because of certain improper remarks made by the trial court toprospective jurors during voir dire (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mason, 132 AD3d 777,779 [2015]; People v Cunningham,119 AD3d 601, 601 [2014]). Specifically, the Supreme Court stated to prospective jurorsthat, if they were excused from jury service for lack of English language proficiency, they "mayhave to take an English course," as required by the court. Contrary to the defendant's contention,the court's misconduct did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from therules of preservation (see People vBrown, 7 NY3d 880, 881 [2006]; People v Mason, 132 AD3d at 779; Peoplev Cunningham, 119 AD3d at 601-602; People v Casanova, 62 AD3d 88, 91-92 [2009]; People vMcDuffie, 270 AD2d 362 [2000]). However, we take this opportunity to express our strongdisapproval of the court's conduct in issuing these remarks. While we deem the court's remarks tobe inappropriate, under the circumstances of this case, reversal is not warranted (see People vMason, 132 AD3d at 779; People vBailey, 66 AD3d 491, 491 [2009]; People v Daniel, 37 AD3d 731, 732 [2007]). Eng, P.J., Rivera,Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.