People v Jeffrey Chicco

People v Chicco 2005 NYSlipOp 05009 June 14, 2005 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 24, 2005

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Jeffrey Chicco, Appellant.

—[*1]

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, seven years and 21/3 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the People's Batson application (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]). The record supports the court's finding of pretext, which is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352, 356-357 [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 NY2d 172, 184 [1996]; People v Ciauri, 266 AD2d 164 [1999], affd sub nom. People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136 [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. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Sullivan and Catterson, JJ.