| People v Fogel |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03954 [73 AD3d 803] |
| May 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AlFogel, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng,J.), rendered October 3, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of thesame court (Lewis, J.) dated September 18, 2008, which denied, without a hearing, his motionpursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction rendered October 3, 2005.
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting thePeople's reverse Batson-Kern application (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79[1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]).The Supreme Court's determination that the facially race-neutral reasons proffered by defensecounsel to explain the peremptory challenges of those jurors were pretextual is entitled to greatdeference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see People v Fortunato, 59 AD3d735 [2009]; People v Boston,52 AD3d 728, 728-729 [2008]; People v Quito, 43 AD3d 411, 412-413 [2007]; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d852, 853 [2006]).
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that the People failed to disclosecertain Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]). Upon reviewof the record, we find that there is no reasonable possibility that disclosure of the subjectmaterial would have affected the outcome of the trial (see People v Pressley, 91 NY2d825 [1997]; People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67 [1990]; People v McGee, 232 AD2d429 [1996]). Santucci, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.