|People v Fortunato|
|2009 NY Slip Op 01497 [59 AD3d 735]|
|February 24, 2009|
|Appellate Division, Second Department|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
|The People of the State of New York, Respondent,|
Louis Fortunato, Also Known as George Navas, Also Known as Lewis Johnson, Appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette
Lifschitz, Muhammad Ikhlas, and Danielle Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, Muhammad Ikhlas, and Danielle Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered May 18, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the People's reverse Batson-Kern application (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 ). The court's determination that the facially race-neutral reasons proffered by defense counsel to explain the two peremptory challenges in question were pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see People v Boston, 52 AD3d 728, 728-729 ; People v Quito, 43 AD3d 411, 412-413 ; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d 852, 853 ).
Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention raised in point I of his supplemental pro se brief, the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 ; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 ). Finally, contrary to the defendant's contention raised in Point II of his supplemental pro se brief, there was no Brady violation (see Brady v Maryland, 373 [*2]US 83 ). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.