PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN (2003)

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered November 9, 2001, convicting each defendant, after a joint jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing defendant Christian, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 25 years to life, and sentencing defendant Crawford, as a second felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly denied defendants' applications made pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69.   The record supports the court's determination that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the challenges in question were not pretextual.   This finding is entitled to great deference (see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621, affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395).

 The court did not delegate any judicial authority to a court officer when it sent the officer to ask a panel of prospective jurors if any of them wished to advise the court of potential scheduling problems.   This preliminary inquiry assigned to the court officer involved a ministerial matter (see People v. Bonaparte, 78 N.Y.2d 26, 31, 571 N.Y.S.2d 421, 574 N.E.2d 1027;  People v. Lopez, 288 A.D.2d 118, 119, 733 N.Y.S.2d 50, affd. 99 N.Y.2d 76, 751 N.Y.S.2d 830, 781 N.E.2d 894).   Since the court remained immediately available to make any needed inquiries as to the panelists' ability to serve, and to rule on whether any panelist should be excused, no delegation of judicial authority occurred (see People v. Hernandez, 94 N.Y.2d 552, 708 N.Y.S.2d 34, 729 N.E.2d 691).

 Defendant Crawford failed to preserve her challenges to the prosecutor's summation comments and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.   Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were generally responsive to the defense summation and fair comment on the evidence, and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724;  People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentences.