Opinion
October 8, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the credibility determinations of the jury.
Since defense counsel was given notice of the court's intention to respond to the jury's request for supplemental instruction regarding reasonable doubt by simply rereading its original instructions, and counsel declined the opportunity to offer comment, defendant's current claim that the court did not give his counsel meaningful notice regarding the supplemental instructions is not preserved ( People v. DeRosario, 81 N.Y.2d 801). Further, since the court's initial instructions were proper, there was no error in the court's rereading those instructions ( People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert. denied 459 U.S. 847). In this connection, the court properly determined that meaningful response required readback of its full initial instructions regarding reasonable doubt, including that portion referring to proper consideration of the testimony of a single identifying witness ( supra).
The court properly accepted as nonpretextual the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for peremptory challenges to three venirepersons ( see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, aff'd 500 U.S. 352). In this connection, defendant's current claim that the court failed to make a proper record of its findings in determining defendants Batson challenge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court followed the three-step Batson procedure and, upon its assessment of the credibility of the prosecutor, properly found that the offered race-neutral reasons were not pretextual ( supra).
We have considered defendant's additional claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.