—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered February 2, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record in this case does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). It is incumbent upon the party mounting 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” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268). Here, the defendant failed to articulate on the record a sound factual basis for his Batson claim, noting only the bare fact that the prosecution allegedly exercised nine of fourteen peremptory challenges against black venirepersons. Use of a disproportionate number of strikes, without more, is rarely dis-positive of the issue of an impermissible discriminatory motive. In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the court correctly found that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see, People v Redish, 262 AD2d 664; People v Phillips, 259 AD2d 565; People v Willingham, 253 AD2d 533, cert denied 525 US 1183).
Where the People fail to exercise due care in preserving Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 386 US 866) and the defendant is prejudiced thereby, the trial