Opinion
April 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court correctly determined that the People made a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination by the defense in the latter's use of its peremptory challenges to exclude white, male prospective jurors ( see, People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317). While the explanations offered by the defense were facially neutral, satisfying the defendant's burden under the second prong of the Batson analysis ( see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-98; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109), the People met their burden of showing, under the third prong of the analysis, the pretextual nature of the defendant's explanation that one prospective juror who was a white-collar worker could not "identify" with the defendant ( see, People v. Allen, supra, at 104). It is at this stage of the Batson analysis that "implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination" ( see, Purkett v. Elem, 514 US ___, ___, 115 S Ct 1769, 1771). The defense did not question this prospective juror with respect to his ability to "identify" with the defendant. Additionally, the defense counsel's statement that he did not "get a good feel" from this prospective juror was purely intuitive ( see, People v Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84). Accordingly, the court correctly denied the defendant's challenge to that prospective juror and seated him.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.