PEOPLE v. SEECHARAN (1999)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered March 25, 1998, convicting him of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for a mistrial based upon a verbal confrontation between the counsel for the codefendant Julian Madramootoo and the prosecutor in front of the jury (see, People v. Madramootoo, 267 A.D.2d 477, 700 N.Y.S.2d 864 [decided herewith];  CPL 280.10 [1];  People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288, 292, 445 N.Y.S.2d 116, 429 N.E.2d 794;  People v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 320, 671 N.Y.S.2d 293).   The prompt curative instructions were sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect that the confrontation may have had on the jury, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299-300, 464 N.Y.S.2d 703, 451 N.E.2d 450;  People v. Vann, 182 A.D.2d 655, 657, 581 N.Y.S.2d 865).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).

 The defendant contends that the Supreme Court failed to properly determine whether the prosecutor's proffered explanations for the exercise of three peremptory challenges of black female potential jurors were pretextual.   As the defendant did not articulate to the Supreme Court any reason why the explanations were pretextual, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 181, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542;  People v. West, 243 A.D.2d 590, 665 N.Y.S.2d 289).   In any event, the Supreme Court properly found that the explanations given by the prosecutor were not pretextual (see, People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173).

 Where, as here, there had been several extended delays of the trial, the Supreme Court properly discharged a sworn juror who was very ill and would be unable to perform her duties for at least one day (see, CPL 270.35;  People v. Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69, 531 N.Y.S.2d 83, 526 N.E.2d 783).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.