Does not matter that defense counsel was on notice of the court's failure to respond to their substantive request?

Nor does it matter, as the majority contends, that defense counsel was on notice of the court's failure to respond (majority op. at 541, 36 N.Y.S.3d at 74, 55 N.E.3d at 1047). The majority in People v. Nealon relied on this same argument to impose a preservation requirement in cases where a court fails to comply with the other half of its CPL 310.30 core responsibility, namely the requirement to provide defense counsel with meaningful notice of a jury's substantive request and an opportunity for counsel to participate in

[55 N.E.3d 1052]

[36 N.Y.S.3d 79]