Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D.
The court conducted a thorough colloquy with a juror who expressed a concern for his safety as a result of his erroneous belief that defendant’s wife had tried to contact him, and, following this inquiry, the court properly concluded that the juror was not grossly unqualified to continue serving. After the juror learned that the call he received (apparently the result of a stranger dialing a wrong number) could not have been from defendant’s wife, he assured the court that this incident would not affect his ability to remain fair and impartial (see CPL 270.35 [1]; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290 [1987]).
The sentence for defendant’s conviction under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b), for possessing a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another, must run concurrently with the sentences on the other charges relating to the shootings. The People neither alleged nor proved any unlawful intent that was separate from his intent to shoot the victims (see People v Wright, 19 NY3d 359 [2012]). However, the court lawfully imposed a consecutive sentence for the conviction under Penal Law § 265.03 (3), because there was a completed possession, within the meaning of that statute, before the shooting took place (see People v Brown, 21 NY3d 739 [2013]).
We perceive no other basis for reducing the sentences.