Opinion
October 21, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The attempted stop of the vehicle in which defendant was riding when he was apprehended was based on specific and articulable facts, to wit, the fact that the police reasonably believed that a traffic offense had been committed because the vehicle did not have its headlights on shortly after sunset (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [a]; see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; see also, People v Seruya, 113 A.D.2d 777). Defendant's contention that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges for the sole purpose of excluding minorities from the jury is without merit since he has failed to make a factual showing sufficient to establish a prima facie case of systematic discrimination in the selection of the petit jury (see, People v McCray, 57 N.Y.2d 542, cert denied 461 U.S. 961; People v Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321, 329; People v Harvey, 111 A.D.2d 185; People v Galarza, 109 A.D.2d 892). Additionally, defendant was properly sentenced in absentia, since his voluntary refusal to be present at his sentencing after various reschedulings indicated an unambiguous defiance of the processes of law and disrupted the proceedings after all the parties were assembled and ready to proceed (cf. People v Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436; see, People v Davis, 106 A.D.2d 657). Finally, we perceive of no reason for the reduction of defendant's sentence. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.