Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel to justify his exercise of a peremptory challenge against the subject panelist was mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent. This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 515; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.