Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Mogil, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the racial composition of the jury panel was waived by his failure to make that challenge in writing to the trial court prior to the selection of the jury (see, CPL 270.10; People v Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 41; People v Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 445, cert denied 433 U.S. 914; People v Sloan, 202 A.D.2d 525; People v Haye, 154 A.D.2d 392). Even in the absence of this procedural obstacle, however, the defendant's failure to demonstrate that the claimed underrepresentation of blacks was the result of systematic exclusion, i.e., "inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized" ( Duren v Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 366), requires rejection of his challenge ( see, People v Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 411, cert denied 466 U.S. 951; People v Blake, 170 A.D.2d 613, 614; People v Haye, supra).
Reversal is not warranted because of the failure to record the entire voir dire proceedings since the defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice (see, People v Harrison, 85 N.Y.2d 794, People v Fearon, 13 N.Y.2d 59, 61; People v Cameron, 219 A.D.2d 662).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.