Opinion
2000-11283
Submitted January 16, 2003.
February 4, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.), rendered December 4, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (V. Marika Meis of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, Victor Barall, and Tziyonah M. Langsam of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his claim that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges to five prospective jurors were racially motivated (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). However, the Supreme Court is in the best position to determine whether the proffered explanations for peremptory challenges are credible (see People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431). The Supreme Court's determination that the explanations were nonpretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356-357, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v. Pellington, 294 A.D.2d 197, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 771; People v. Wilson, 278 A.D.2d 519; People v. McDougle, 230 A.D.2d 808). To the extent that the defendant's arguments on appeal are based on grounds which were not articulated in the Supreme Court, they are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Sumpter, 286 A.D.2d 450; People v. Sedney, 254 A.D.2d 376; see generally People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.