Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During voir dire, the defense counsel exercised a peremptory challenge for a prospective white juror. The court, noting the defense counsel's pattern of challenging white venirepersons, requested an explanation for the challenge. Although the defense counsel initially claimed that the reason he was challenging the prospective juror was because she had a number of family members who were correction officers, the defense counsel ultimately replied that it was because the prospective juror was white. Thereafter, the court denied the defendant's peremptory challenge, finding that his prior explanation was pretextual. We agree.
It is well settled that purposeful racial discrimination by defendants and their counsel in criminal cases in the exercise of peremptory challenges is prohibited under the New York State and Federal Constitutions ( see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; see, Hernandez v. New York, 76 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824; People v Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 515). The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent ( see, People v. Hawthorne, 80 N.Y.2d 873; People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431; People v. McCoy, 210 A.D.2d 508; People v. Dixon, 202 A.D.2d 12). The court's determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record ( see, Hernandez v. New York, supra; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559; People v. Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462).
The defendant also challenges the Supreme Court's decision to close the courtroom during the undercover police officer's testimony. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the undercover officers testimony that he would be returning to the area of the defendant's arrest, that he was involved in undercover operations in the area of the courthouses, and that he had received threats while working as an undercover officer was sufficient to support the closure of the courtroom during his trial testimony ( see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 444; People v. Mitchell, 209 A.D.2d 444; People v. Thompson, 202 A.D.2d 454; People v. Hosien, 204 A.D.2d 658; People v Campbell, 204 A.D.2d 474).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.