Opinion
May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Harbater, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying two of her challenges to prospective jurors for cause. "The determination as to whether a prospective juror can provide reasonable jury service in a given case is left largely to the discretion of the trial court, which can question and observe the prospective juror during voir dire" (People v. Pagan, 191 A.D.2d 651, 651-652; see also, People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 885). A review of the record reveals that neither prospective juror's voir dire indicated that they possessed a state of mind which would preclude the defendant from receiving a fair trial (see, CPL 270.20; People v. Pagan, supra). Accordingly, the defendant's contentions are without merit.
Further, we find that the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.