Opinion
September 8, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Elbert C. Hinkson, J., Frank Diaz, J.
We find that the verdict was not based on legally insufficient evidence, nor against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
By the end of the second round of jury selection, the People had used six peremptory challenges, five of which eliminated five of the six available Caucasian panelists. Defendant, a Caucasian, therefore established a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court properly obtained explanations for the People's second-round challenges, which the court, whose determinations on this subject are entitled to great deference (People v Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356-357, affd 500 U.S. 352), properly found to be race-neutral. At that point, although defendant did not specifically renew his request for explanations of the People's first-round challenges, he renewed his general Batson (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) application. Therefore, the court should have required the People to explain their first-round challenges, as well, and we remit for a hearing for that purpose (People v. Scott, 70 N.Y.2d 420, 426).
Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the People furnished insufficient medical proof that the complainant was unable to testify during a period which the court excluded under the "exceptional circumstances" provision (CPL 30.30 [g]) and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find it without merit, because the medical affirmation (CPLR 2106) adequately supported the complainant's unavailability (see, People v. Pomales, 159 A.D.2d 451, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 847).
We find defendant's remaining contentions to be largely unpreserved, and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.