grounds supporting claim in New York

2026The defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79 ) to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges was properly denied, as the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. "'It is incumbent upon a party making 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 Devane , 242 AD3d 764 , 765, quoting People v Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 914 ; see People v Childress , 81 NY2d 263, 268 ).

2025"It is incumbent upon a party making 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 Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 914; see People v Childress , 81 NY2d 263, 268).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making 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 (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making 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 (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2026The defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79 ) to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges was properly denied, as the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. "'It is incumbent upon a party making 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 Devane , 242 AD3d 764 , 765, quoting People v Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 914 ; see People v Childress , 81 NY2d 263, 268 ).

2025"It is incumbent upon a party making 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 Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 914; see People v Childress , 81 NY2d 263, 268).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making 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 (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making 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 (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 ; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824 ; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061 ; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994 ).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 ; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824 ; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061 ; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994 ).

2017On this record, the defendant’s reliance on the number of peremptory challenges exercised by the People against prospective male jurors, without more, was insufficient to make a prima facie showing (see People v Hecker, 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 [2010]; People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]; People v Chance, 125 AD3d 993, 994 [2015]; People v Sandy, 11 AD3d 489, 489 [2004]).

2017On this record, the defendant’s reliance on the number of peremptory challenges exercised by the People against prospective male jurors, without more, was insufficient to make a prima facie showing (see People v Hecker, 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 [2010]; People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]; People v Chance, 125 AD3d 993, 994 [2015]; People v Sandy, 11 AD3d 489, 489 [2004]).

2012“It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objec tion is raised and discussed” (People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977, 977 [2010]; see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919, 920 [2006]).

2012“It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objec tion is raised and discussed” (People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977, 977 [2010]; see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919, 920 [2006]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making 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 (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making 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 (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2017On this record, the defendant’s reliance on the number of peremptory challenges exercised by the People against prospective male jurors, without more, was insufficient to make a prima facie showing (see People v Hecker, 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 [2010]; People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]; People v Chance, 125 AD3d 993, 994 [2015]; People v Sandy, 11 AD3d 489, 489 [2004]).

2017On this record, the defendant’s reliance on the number of peremptory challenges exercised by the People against prospective male jurors, without more, was insufficient to make a prima facie showing (see People v Hecker, 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 [2010]; People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]; People v Chance, 125 AD3d 993, 994 [2015]; People v Sandy, 11 AD3d 489, 489 [2004]).

2002“There are no fixed rules for determining what evidence will * * * establish a prima facie case of discrimination” (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 323-324 [1992]). “[A] party asserting a claim under Batson * * * should 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” (Childress at 268 [citation omitted]).

1996Although the defense counsel raised a Batson challenge during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ), he failed to "articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection was raised and discussed” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 ; People v Stokes, 216 AD2d 337 ), and thus failed to establish a prima facie "pattern of purposeful exclusion” (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325 ).

2019On this record, the defendant's reliance on the number of peremptory challenges exercised by the People against black prospective jurors, without more, was insufficient to make a prima facie showing ( see People v Steele , 79 NY2d 317, 325 ; People v Rudolph , 132 AD3d 912, 913 ; People v Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 915 ; People v Scott , 70 AD3d 977, 977 ).

2018The failure to make a prima facie case requires denial of the Batson application ( see People v Rudolph , 132 AD3d 912, 913 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1138 [2016]).

2005In support of his application, the defendant argued that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only black male juror, who indicated that he could be fair and impartial, from the first round of jury selection (see People v James, 278 AD2d 340, 341 [2000]; People v Harrison, 272 AD2d 554 [2000]).

2001Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his assertion that the prosecutor used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges to strike potential black jurors from the jury was insufficient to make a prima facie showing of discrimination under Batson (see, People v James, 278 AD2d 340 ; People v Taylor, 277 AD2d 260 ; People v Harrison, supra).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 ; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824 ; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061 ; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994 ).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994).

2025On this record, the defendant's reliance on the prosecutor's removal of prospective Black jurors, without more, was insufficient for a prima facie showing of discrimination ( see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 651-652, 655 ; People v Small , 156 AD3d 820, 824 ; People v Francis , 155 AD3d 1059, 1061 ; People v Chance , 125 AD3d 993, 994 ).

2024Defendant's claim that the court "seiz[ed] control of the subject and subjugat[ed] defendant to its authority," thereby excusing him from pressing the issue or moving for a mistrial, is not even remotely borne out in the record ( see People v Hunter , 16 AD3d 187, 188 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 887 [2005]).

2023Suffice it to say, it was incumbent upon defendant 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 [1993]), and he cannot now use information outside of the record to argue that he had made out a prima facie case of discrimination ( see People v Salazar , 132 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1150 [2016]; see also People v Taylor , 185 AD3d 724, 728 [2d Dept 2020]).

2023Suffice it to say, it was incumbent upon defendant 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 [1993]), and he cannot now use information outside of the record to argue that he had made out a prima facie case of discrimination ( see People v Salazar , 132 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1150 [2016]; see also People v Taylor , 185 AD3d 724, 728 [2d Dept 2020]).

2019We find no basis to disturb the trial court's factual determination in denying the defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79 ). "[A] party asserting a claim under Batson . . . should 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 ; see People v Allen , 86 NY2d 101, 110 ).

2019On appeal, the defendant relies upon new arguments that were not raised before the trial court, and therefore, the record is not fully developed as it pertains to such issues ( see People v Allen , 86 NY2d at 110-111 ).

2017“To give the trial court a basis to evaluate the claim, a party asserting a claim under Batson should articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is discussed.” (People v Smith, 81 NY2d 875, 876 [1993] [rejecting the argument that “minorities” are a cognizable racial group for Batson challenges].) The defendant had a burden here.

2015On this record, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination based on the number of peremptory challenges exercised by the prosecution against black venirepersons, and the defendant’s vague and conclusory assertions that the challenged jurors were not unqualified to serve on the jury and “similarly situated to members ... on the jury” (see People v Jones, 11 *1046 NY3d 822, 823 [2008]; People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]; People v Childress, 81 NY2d at 267-268; People v Christiani, 96 AD3d 870, 872 [2012]; People v Rodriguez, 272 AD2d 482, 482 [2000]; People v W