Opinion
April 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
After the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by defense counsel in the exercise of his peremptory challenges, the court asked defense counsel to explain his challenges to several prospective jurors. As to prospective juror number 8 during the first round of jury selection, defense counsel stated that he had two relatives who were retired police officers. The record reveals that the two relatives were the prospective juror's brothers. The court rejected defense counsel's challenge to prospective juror number 8 and seated him.
The explanation proffered by defense counsel was a facially neutral reason sufficient to rebut the prosecution's prima facie showing of discrimination ( see, People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109-110). The court's rejection of defense counsel's challenge to prospective juror number 8, absent any further showing by the prosecutor that the reason proffered by defense counsel was pretextual, deprived the defendant of his right to a jury of his choice ( see, People v. Miranda, 220 A.D.2d 218).
In view of our determination that the defendant is entitled to a new trial, we do not reach his remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Altman, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.