PEOPLE v. CHICCO (2005)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 25, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years, 7 years and 2 1/313 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly granted the People's Batson application (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 [1986];  People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235 [1990], cert. denied 498 U.S. 824, 111 S.Ct. 77, 112 L.Ed.2d 50 [1990] ).   The record supports the court's finding of pretext, which 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 [1990], affd. 500 U.S. 352, 356-357, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991] ).   The court was not required to have the People respond to defense counsel's explanation for the challenge of the juror in question before making its ruling that the explanation was pretextual (People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 184, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542 [1996];  People v. Ciauri, 266 A.D.2d 164, 699 N.Y.S.2d 341 [1999], affd. sub nom. People v. Besser, 96 N.Y.2d 136, 726 N.Y.S.2d 48, 749 N.E.2d 727 [2001] ).   There is no basis for disturbing the court's finding that counsel's unexplained and unsupported generalization was a pretext for racial discrimination.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.