Opinion
September 26, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.).
We find no merit to defendant's equal protection claim alleging that the prosecutor discriminately exercised her peremptory challenges as to prospective jurors with Hispanic surnames. The prosecutor provided racially neutral reasons for the exercise of her peremptory challenges (see generally, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 US ___, 114 L Ed 2d 395). Notably, the prosecutor's explanations, which plainly amounted to more than mere general denials of discriminatory motive or assertions of good faith (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79), were not further controverted by the defense, nor was a more elaborate explanation called for by the Trial Judge — who presided at the voir dire and reviewed the voir dire transcript prior to denying defendant's Batson motion.
Defendant's claim that he was denied due process by the court's alleged inadequate response to the jury question of whether "profit in any form constituted sale or agency" is unpreserved. In any event, defendant's claim does not warrant interest of justice review, as we find the trial court fashioned a meaningful response to the jury's question by explaining that there was "no specific legal formula" to apply, and that the jury should consider circumstances of the particular case, including such factors as the nature of the "payment" made, to whom it was made, and whether a benefit was received in drugs or money (see generally, People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kassal and Smith, JJ.