Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly denied the defendant's challenge of a prospective juror for cause. Although the juror initially stated that she could not pass judgment on others, she unequivocally stated, upon further questioning, that she could hear the evidence, receive the court's instructions on the law, deliberate, and render a fair and impartial verdict ( see, People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 78-79). Moreover, where a court determines, after reasonable inquiry, that a juror will cast aside any preconceived notion, impression, or opinion as to the guilt or nonguilt of an accused and render a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented at trial, that juror may be considered impartial and fit for service ( see, People v. Byrd, 214 A.D.2d 581).
Furthermore, because a proper foundation was not laid, the complainant's trial testimony could not be impeached simply by showing that she omitted to state certain facts to the investigating officer ( see, People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80-81). Defense counsel failed to show that the complainant's attention was called to, and that she was specifically asked about, the facts omitted ( see, People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 88; People v. Nazario, 235 A.D.2d 435).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.