Opinion
October 6, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the Trial Judge's acceptance, as nonpretextual, of the People's explanations for challenging two black venirepersons in the third round of jury selection. The People, having offered facially-neutral reasons for challenging these two jurors, satisfied their burden in overcoming an inference of discrimination ( see, People v. Batson, 476 U.S. 79, 96-98; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101). The burden then shifted back to the defendant to establish that these explanations were merely pretextual ( see, People v. Allen, supra). The defendant offered brief arguments in attempting to show that the People's explanations were pretextual. Since the People's explanations were facially-neutral and supported by the record, we refuse to disturb the determination of the Trial Judge, who was in the best position to observe counsel's demeanor and assess his credibility ( see, People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Luciano, JJ., concur.