Opinion
January 25, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the court's refusal to discharge a juror is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Jacobs, 223 A.D.2d 726, 727, citing People v. Hopkins, 76 N.Y.2d 872, 873). In any event, his contention is without merit. The standard for discharging a juror as grossly unqualified to serve under CPL 270.35 "`is satisfied only "when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict"'" ( People v. Radtke, 219 A.D.2d 739, quoting People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 298; see, People v. Bolden, 197 A.D.2d 528). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to discharge the subject juror, as he was not grossly unqualified to serve ( cf., People v. Huntley, 237 A.D.2d 533, citing People v. Rodriguez, 71 N.Y.2d 214; People v. Corrica, 237 A.D.2d 372).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86).
Santucci, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.