Opinion
2627
December 19, 2002.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered May 11, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
Christopher J. Blira-Koessler, for respondent.
Michael A. Denyszyn, for defendant-appellant.
Before: WILLIAMS, P.J., ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, LERNER, GONZALEZ, JJ.
Defendant's application pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79) was properly denied. The court made a sufficient inquiry into whether the race-neutral reason offered by the prosecutor for challenging the panelist at issue was pretextual. Although the court may have initially expressed some skepticism about the offered race-neutral reason, the court made further inquiries of the prosecutor and satisfied itself that there was no racial discrimination. The record supports the court's implicit findings that the prosecutor had overheard the panelist utter a comment that could be construed as hostile to police officers, and that this race-neutral reason for challenging the panelist was not pretextual (see People v. Turner, 294 A.D.2d 192, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 732). These findings are entitled to great deference (see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352).
By failing to object, or by making generalized objections, defendant failed to preserve his challenges to the prosecutor's summation and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged summation remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and were responsive to defendant's summation (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
The court properly admitted a statement made by defendant in a prior court proceeding. "Any act or declaration of the accused inconsistent with his innocence is admissible as an admission" (People v. Harris, 148 A.D.2d 469). Defendant's statement tended to connect him with an item that had been stolen from the victim.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.