Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim pursuant to Batson v Kentucky ( 476 US 79), premised on the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike female African-American prospective jurors, 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 ( see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 271; People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268). In support of his Batson application, the defendant relied solely on the number of prospective female African-American jurors challenged to support his request for a race/gender-neutral explanation, and otherwise offered no showing of circumstances sufficient to raise an inference of a pattern of discrimination ( see People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977; People v Diaz, 59 AD3d 459; People v Connelly, 54 AD3d 348; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919). Since the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Supreme Court did not err in failing to require the prosecutor to provide a race/gender-neutral explanation for his challenges to the prospective female African-American jurors ( see People v Childress, 81 NY2d at 268; People v Scott, 70 AD3d at 977; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d at 919).