People v. KennerlyPeople v. Kennerly
The defendant‘s Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]) was properly denied as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. It is incumbent upon the party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]). In support of his application, the defendant argued that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only black male juror, who indicated that he could be fair and impartial, from the first round of jury selection (see People v James, 278 AD2d 340, 341 [2000]; People v Harrison, 272 AD2d 554 [2000]). In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see People v Harrison, supra; People v Phillips, 259 AD2d 565 [1999]).
However, as the People concede, criminal contempt in the second degree is a lesser-included offense of criminal contempt in the first degree pursuant to
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.