During voir dire of prospective jurors, after defense counsel had exercised his peremptory challenges, the court permitted the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge to a panelist who had already been accepted by the defense and seated as a juror. However, CPL 270.15 (2) precludes the People from challenging a prospective juror remaining in the jury box after a defendant has exercised his or her peremptory challenges. Because defendant was thereby deprived of a juror he wished to have seated, and because the court did not provide him with a remedy, such as allowing him to re-exercise his peremptory challenges, we find that he was significantly prejudiced, such that a new trial is required ( see People v McQuade, 110 NY 284; compare e.g. People v Levy, 194 AD2d 319, 320-321, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 890 [court's remedy prevented any prejudice]).
We reject defendant's challenge to his first-degree robbery conviction.