Opinion
(1403) KA 99-05595.
November 9, 2001.
(Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Broderick, Sr., J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.)
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, SCUDDER, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) arising out of an altercation between defendant and a police officer. Defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the police officer suffered a physical injury as a result of defendant's conduct ( see, People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). In any event, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish causation ( see, People v. Green, 258 A.D.2d 332, 333, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 925; People v. Thompson, 224 A.D.2d 646, 647, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 970; People v. Douglas, 143 A.D.2d 452, 453; cf., People v. Pierce, 201 A.D.2d 677, 678, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 914). Moreover, the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded on that issue ( see, People v. Douglas, supra, at 453; see generally, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
County Court properly rejected defendant's Batson claim ( see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87-89). The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the prosecutor's explanation for exercising the peremptory strike at issue was race-neutral and not pretextual ( see, People v. Cuthrell, 284 A.D.2d 982; People v. Sell, 283 A.D.2d 920, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 867; People v. Hinds, 270 A.D.2d 891, 892, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 964; People v. Diaz, 269 A.D.2d 766, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 852). The court was in the best position to observe both the prospective juror's demeanor and that of the prosecutor and its determination is entitled to great deference ( see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v. Sell, supra; People v. Carelock, 278 A.D.2d 851, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 757).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions, including the challenge to the sentence as unduly harsh or severe and unconstitutional, and conclude that they are without merit.