Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly granted the People's reverse- Batson application ( see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638). The record supports the court's finding of pretext with regard to the two prospective jurors at issue, and that finding is entitled to great deference ( see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350). Although defense counsel provided race- neutral reasons for challenging the two jurors, the record establishes that defense counsel did not challenge other jurors with similar backgrounds ( see People v McLaurin, 47 AD3d 843; People v Quito, 43 AD3d 411, 413). Accordingly, the two challenged jurors were properly seated.
Further, the court properly concluded that a deliberating juror was not grossly unqualified to serve on the jury since, after expressing a generalized concern for his safety, he was not certain that he had seen the defendant in his neighborhood and he assured the court that he would remain fair and impartial ( see CPL 270.35; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290; People v Banks, 33 AD3d 385, 385-386; People v Bunch, 278 AD2d 501, 502; People v Attanasio, 191 AD2d 447, 448).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).