Opinion
October 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant defendant's request for a further adjournment to prepare his case in order to present three unidentified witnesses (compare, People v. Washington, 71 N.Y.2d 916, with People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473). Defendant failed to make the required showing of the identity and materiality of the witnesses to be called (Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284; People v Villegas, 190 A.D.2d 593, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 978), and there is nothing in the record to establish defendant's claim that the Trial Judge refused to permit defendant the opportunity to make an offer of proof concerning the materiality of the proposed witnesses.
The prosecution provided adequate race-neutral explanations for striking the two prospective African-American jurors (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352). One juror was struck because his son had been wrongly arrested and incarcerated for a crime he did not commit, creating the possibility of bias against the prosecution. The other juror was struck because the prosecution observed that juror to be hostile towards the prosecution and more receptive to the defense. (See, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d, supra, at 357.)
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.