The trial court properly denied defendant‘s for cause challenge to a prospective juror who indicated that she was “affected” by a prior mugging because the panelist, upon the court‘s and prosecutor‘s inquiry, indicated that she could remain impartial and follow the court‘s instructions (compare People v Valdivia, 65 AD3d 950, 950 [2009], with People v Sarubbi, 61 AD3d 493, 493 [2009]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.