Opinion
December 22, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in determining that the defense counsel's racially-neutral explanations for challenging two jurors were pretextual. We disagree. The trial court was in the best position to determine the credibility of defense counsel's explanations and found that such explanations were not credible. Affording the trial court deference in its decision, we conclude that it did not err in seating two challenged jurors over the defense counsel's objections ( see, People v. Garcia, 239 A.D.2d 599).
While the trial court's note-taking charge did not mirror the exact language required by People v. DiLuca ( 85 A.D.2d 439), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
The imposition of consecutive sentences was proper ( see, People v. Daniels, 240 A.D.2d 590) and not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). In addition, the defendant was not entitled to a second psychiatric examination before the court imposed sentence ( see, People v. Glover, 128 A.D.2d 636).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.