Opinion
June 6, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.).
We reject defendant's claim of a Batson violation (Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79), asserted on the ground that the prosecutor used two peremptory challenges to exclude two black venire persons but did not challenge a white juror with an allegedly similar employment background. (See, United States v Alvarado, 923 F.2d 253.) While the black jurors were involved in creative employment (theatre and music), the seated white juror merely worked in an unspecified capacity in the television industry. Accordingly, we accord appropriate deference to the trial court's determination that the prosecution adequately articulated a non-pretextual, racially neutral reason for peremptorily challenging these two black jurors. (People v Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638. )
The suppression court properly ruled that the description of defendant by the undercover police officer who made the buy adequately described defendant. It is of minimal significance that defendant was described as "Hispanic" when, in fact, he may be black Hispanic. (People v Polk, 166 A.D.2d 177, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 1023.) This is especially true where defendant matched that part of the description that the suspect was wearing a green army jacket and blue hood, and that he was found within blocks of where the crime took place minutes before (People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.