Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County (Gerald Harris, J.), rendered March 17, 2004, after a jury trial, convicting him of assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction (Gerald Harris, J.), rendered March 17, 2004, affirmed.

Defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 was properly denied since he failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable possibility that the nondisclosure of Rosario material contributed to the result of the trial (see CPL 240.75; People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940 [1988]; People v Wolf, 284 AD2d 102 [2001] mod on other grounds 98 NY2d 105 [2002]) or that there was a probability that had such evidence been received at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to him (see CPL 330.30[3]).

The trial court's response to a note from the deliberating jury was meaningful and appropriately conveyed the applicable legal principles requested (see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131-132 [1984]). The court reasonably interpreted the jury's note as simply calling for the elements of the crimes charged and not instructions on the defense of justification. (see People v Starostin, 265 AD2d 267 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 885 [2000]). We note that the court reminded the jury that it must consider the justification defense and advised that further supplemental instructions could be requested. Since the jury did not request additional instructions, the court's response did not cause defendant any prejudice (see People v Lourido, 70 NY2d 428, 435 [1987]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: September 20, 2006