Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, November 15, 2023

Legal Aid Society (Amy Donner of counsel) for appellant.

Alvin Bragg, District Attorney (Alex King of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered August 3, 2016, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which showed that defendant stole several items of clothing from complainant, for whom she worked as a nanny. The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror who indicated that when she was a child, a nanny had stolen wine from her family (see People v Warrington, 28 NY3d 1116, 1120-1121 [2016]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-363 [2001]). The prospective juror's statements in totality and in context (see People v Warrington, 28 NY3d at 1120) provided an unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and not be influenced by the crime committed against her family (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Toledo, 101 AD3d 571 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 947 [2013]). Her family's victimization occurred far in the past and did not have any emotional impact on the prospective juror, and her assurances of impartiality were sufficient (see People v Feliciano, 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 939 [2001]). Nor were these assurances rendered equivocal by her use of the phrase "I think" (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d at 419; People v Jacobs, 108 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1139 [2014]).

Defendant failed to preserve her claim that Facebook photographs of her wearing the complainant's clothing were insufficiently authenticated, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that complainant sufficiently authenticated the photographs (see People v Taylor, 203 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1075 [2022]; People v Jordan, 181 AD3d 1248, 1249-1250 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1067 [2020]). [*2]Moreover, the record demonstrates that the People could have further established authentication if defendant had objected "at a {**81 Misc 3d at 11}time when the error complained of could readily have been corrected" (People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224, 228 [1975]; see People v Williams, 192 AD3d 487, 487-488 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 961 [2021]).

Hagler, P.J., and Tisch, J., concur.