Opinion
March 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the race-neutral reasons proffered by the prosecutor in support of his peremptory challenges of two prospective black jurors were pretextual (see, People v. Ward, 227 A.D.2d 508, 509; People v. Holman, 221 A.D.2d 469; People v. Holman, 216 A.D.2d 488, affd 89 N.Y.2d 876; People v. Cruz, 200 A.D.2d 581; People v. Bowman, 185 A.D.2d 891). In any event, we find no basis in the record for disturbing the trial court's determination that the reasons proffered by the prosecutor were race neutral (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101; see generally, People v. Jones, 88 N.Y.2d 172).
The defendant's claim that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support his conviction for tampering with physical evidence is not preserved for appellate review as he failed to raise before the trial court the specific ground that he now raises on appeal (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, 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 of tampering with physical evidence 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 sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.