It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, inter alia, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the victim that defendant threatened her with a hacksaw and a steak knife and to reject the theory of the defense that those allegations were untrue and manufactured by the victim's father ( see generally People v Kelly, 34 AD3d 1341, lv denied 8 NY3d 847). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge ( see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, lv denied 1 NY3d 633, 2 NY3d 805 [2004]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]). We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in determining that the prosecutor's explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge with respect to the prospective juror in question was race-neutral and not pretextual ( see People v Lawrence, 23 AD3d 1039, lv denied 6 NY3d 835). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.