Opinion
October 14, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.),
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During jury selection, the defendant objected, pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79), to the prosecution's exercise of two peremptory challenges. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court erred in allowing one of those challenges. The prosecution proffered a race-neutral explanation for the challenge at issue, thereby satisfying its obligation to provide facially neutral reasons for rejecting the juror ( see, People v Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 181; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109-110). The burden then shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that the explanation was pretextual ( see, People v. Payne, supra, at 181). However, since the defendant did not then articulate any reason to conclude that the explanation was pretextual, that claim, now raised on appeal, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Allen, supra, at 109-110; People v. Morrison, 235 A.D.2d 553).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support his conviction of attempted murder in the first degree and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer is also not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.