Opinion
February 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People exercised their peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner is without merit (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). The court properly concluded that the defendant failed to make out a prima facie showing that the prosecution purposefully excluded prospective black jurors on the basis of their race (see, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263). Furthermore, although the defendant, who is black, had standing to assert that Hispanics were improperly peremptorily challenged (see, Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400), he could not, as was the case here, successfully argue that regardless of race, minorities in general constitute a cognizable racial group (see, People v. Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875; People v Figueroa, 194 A.D.2d 551).
The defendant's motion for a separate trial was properly denied as untimely as it was made in the midst of trial, rather than prior to trial as contemplated by CPL 200.40 (1) and 255.20 (see, People v. Becker, 189 A.D.2d 881). In any event, we find no merit to the defendant's argument that he was prejudiced by the joint trial because his defense was antagonistic to that of his codefendants (see, People v. Castro-Restrepo, 169 A.D.2d 454).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.