Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of a prospective juror. The record fails to support the defendant's contention that the prospective juror's predisposition stemming from the burglary of her home four years earlier created a "substantial risk" that she would be unable to discharge her responsibilities as a juror (see, People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882; People v Pagan, 191 A.D.2d 651; People v. Ramos, 196 A.D.2d 787; CPL 270.20 [b]).
In addition, no reversible error took place by the People's introduction of rebuttal testimony concerning the appearance of the complainant's injuries. That testimony was relevant to an issue in the trial inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the defendant's proffered explanation of how the complainant sustained her injuries (see, People v. Cade, 73 N.Y.2d 904; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, cert denied 460 U.S. 1047; People v. Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321; People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; Richardson, Evidence §§ 491, 517 [Prince 10th ed]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.