Opinion
December 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in disallowing three of his peremptory challenges during jury selection as discriminatory against white women in violation of Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79). The trial court's determination that the challenges were pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record ( see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v. Payne, 213 A.D.2d 565, affd 88 N.Y.2d 172; People v. Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's claim that the prosecutor's remarks on summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818). In any event, the comments were not improper as they were either reasonably inferable from the evidence or constituted a fair response to arguments raised by the defense ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Rivera, 158 A.D.2d 723).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in denying his request to incorporate certain language into the jury charge on identification. The charge, as given, sufficiently set forth both the factors to be considered in assessing the veracity of the identification witness's testimony and the fact that identity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Maxwell, 184 A.D.2d 661, 662; 1 CJI[NY] 10.01).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit ( see, People v. Brown, 220 A.D.2d 444).
Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.