PEOPLE v. CUEVAS (2000)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered December 23, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly denied defendant's motion made pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69.   The prosecutor provided a race-neutral, nonpretextual reason for striking the venireperson juror at issue, in that the venireperson lacked work experience of a type that the prosecutor deemed significant.   Defendant has not established that the prosecutor failed to challenge venirepersons who were similarly situated to the venireperson at issue.   The court's finding that the reason was not pretextual is supported by the record and is entitled to “great deference” (see, People v. Pena, 251 A.D.2d 26, 34, 675 N.Y.S.2d 330, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 929, 680 N.Y.S.2d 470, 703 N.E.2d 282;  People v. Wint, 237 A.D.2d 195, 199, 655 N.Y.S.2d 469, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1103, 660 N.Y.S.2d 397, 682 N.E.2d 998).

 The court properly denied defendant's request to charge the lesser included offense of petit larceny since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant was guilty of the lesser crime but not guilty of robbery.   Both complainants testified that defendant threatened the use of a knife while demanding money, and as to each of them such testimony was an integrated whole.   Their testimony was not contradicted or undermined in any way except by defendant who claimed that the complainants gave him the money to settle a dispute.   There was no rational basis, without resort to speculation, upon which the jury could find that defendant took the money without permission, but without the use of force (see, People v. King, 268 A.D.2d 214, 702 N.Y.S.2d 1 lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 922, 708 N.Y.S.2d 361, 729 N.E.2d 1160;  People v. Smith, 240 A.D.2d 300, 658 N.Y.S.2d 621, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 911, 663 N.Y.S.2d 523, 686 N.E.2d 235;  People v. Ruiz, 216 A.D.2d 63, 628 N.Y.S.2d 80, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 1027, 644 N.Y.S.2d 137, 666 N.E.2d 1050).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.