Opinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court did not err by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror possessed a "state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at trial" (CPL 270.20 [b]), or that there was a "substantial risk" that she would be unable to discharge her responsibilities as a juror (see, People v Campbell, 216 A.D.2d 482; People v Pagan, 191 A.D.2d 651; People v Whitmore, 177 A.D.2d 525).
Nor was it error for the court to admit into evidence a marked copy of an enlargement of the defendant's fingerprints. Although this enlargement should have been disclosed to the defendant prior to trial, the court's "refusal to impose `the extreme sanction of preclusion [which] is warranted only where undue prejudice will result from the failure to [timely] produce' (People v Kehn, 109 A.D.2d 912, 914, citing People v Brown, 104 Misc.2d 157, 163-165; see, CPL 240.70), was within the court's sound discretion (see, People v Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 521)" (People v Johnstone, 131 A.D.2d 782).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.