Opinion
April 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted the subject weapon into evidence, since it was not acquired as a result of an illegal search and seizure (see, People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). Moreover, the court properly rejected the defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror whose cousin was a Kings County Assistant District Attorney, because the prospective juror's cousin was in no way involved in the prosecution of this case (see, CPL 270.20 [c]; People v Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410). In any event, the court granted the defendant three peremptory challenges in addition to those to which the defendant was entitled by statute, one of which was subsequently exercised to remove the subject prospective juror.
Finally, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.