People v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 00566 [224 AD3d 1308]
February 2, 2024
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Keith G. Brown, Appellant.
Julie Cianca, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Merideth H. Smith of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered May 28, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of attempted criminal purchase or disposal of a weapon.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted criminal purchase or disposal of a weapon (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.17 [1]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that he was prohibited from lawfully acquiring a firearm at the time of the attempted purchase. We reject that contention ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 , 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495).
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, County Court properly denied his Batson challenge with respect to two prospective jurors. The People gave race-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges, and defendant did not meet his ultimate burden of establishing that those reasons were pretextual ( see People v Wells , 7 NY3d 51 , 58 [2006]; People v Thompson , 59 AD3d 1115 , 1117 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 860 [2009]; see generally People v Switts , 148 AD3d 1610 , 1611 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1087 [2017]). The court was “in the best position to evaluate the demeanor of the prospective juror[s], the prosecutor, and defense counsel, and . . . its determination that the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for striking the prospective juror[s] were not pretextual is entitled to great deference” ( People v Herrod , 174 AD3d 1322 , 1324 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 951 [2019]; see People v Ross , 118 AD3d 1321 , 1322 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1067 [2014], denied reconsideration 24 NY3d 1122 [2015]). With respect to a third prospective juror, defendant’s Batson challenge is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not object or attempt to respond after the People offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge ( see People v James , 99 NY2d 264, 271-272 [2002]; People v Singleton , 192 AD3d 1536 , 1538 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Scott , 81 AD3d 1470 , 1471 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 801 [2011]).
Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that he was denied the right to confrontation with respect to the People’s evidence of the operability of the firearm that defendant attempted to purchase ( see generally People v Wakefield , 38 NY3d 367 , 385-386 [2022], rearg denied 38 NY3d 1121 [2022], cert denied 598 US —, 143 S Ct 451 [2022], reh denied 598 US —, 143 S Ct 1799 [2023]). Present—Lindley, J.P., Curran, Bannister, Greenwood and DelConte, JJ..