Opinion
Argued March 3, 2000.
April 20, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered October 7, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Katherine R. Schaefer of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, Donna Aldea, and Danial Derechin of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly determined that his challenge to a juror based on her status as a crime victim was pretextual, since he did not apply that facially race-neutral reason to other prospective jurors who were similarly situated (see, People v. Hewitt, 258 A.D.2d 597 ; People v. Hill, 245 A.D.2d 464, 465 ; People v. Morrison, 220 A.D.2d 694 ; People v. Meyers, 217 A.D.2d 639 ; People v. Watson, 216 A.D.2d 596 ). It is well settled that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney may exercise peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner to exclude a cognizable group (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 ; People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824). Where, as here, the People established a prima facie case of discrimination, the defense counsel was required to set forth race-neutral, non-pretextual reasons for the peremptory challenges (see, People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109 ; People v. Rivera, 220 A.D.2d 782, 783 ). While a challenge to a juror's status as a crime victim is not pretextual on its face, it may properly be regarded as such when it appears that it is being exercised in accordance with a discriminatory pattern (see, People v. Watson, 216 A.D.2d 596 ; People v. Velasquez, 213 A.D.2d 505 ; People v. Lopez, 211 A.D.2d 827 ; People v. Taylor, 208 A.D.2d 967 ). The trial court's determination that the defense counsel's proffered reasons were pretextual will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v. Rivera, supra, at 783; People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431, 433 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.