People v. Knight

200 N.Y.S.3d 19, 222 A.D.3d 598, 2023 NY Slip Op 06816

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: December 28, 2023
• Docket: Ind. No. 1662/17 Appeal No. 1326 Case No. 2019-04804
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Knight (2023 NY Slip Op 06816)

People v Knight

2023 NY Slip Op 06816

Decided on December 28, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 28, 2023
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Webber, Friedman, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.

Ind. No. 1662/17 Appeal No. 1326 Case No. 2019-04804

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Makeda Knight, Defendant-Appellant.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Peter Rienzi of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michele S. Rodney, J.), rendered June 18, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's argument that her application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]) should have been granted is unpreserved. Although defendant took exception to the court's acceptance of the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge, defendant did not articulate any reason for why the explanation was pretextual, including his current claim of disparate treatment by the prosecutor of similarly situated non-Black panelists (see People v Irvin, 187 AD3d 417, 417 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1051 [2021]; People v Toliver, 102 AD3d 411, 412 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1011 [2013]). The record fails to support defendant's contention that the court had "cut off" defense counsel before counsel could elaborate on the objection. We decline to review the unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record does not support a finding that the prosecutor's proffered explanation was pretextual.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: December 28, 2023