Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) because the prosecutor's explanation for exercising a peremptory challenge with respect to a male juror was a pretext for gender discrimination. However, since the defendant raised no objection to the prosecutor's explanation for challenging that juror, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 272; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d 852, 853; People v Harris, 294 AD2d 375; People v Sumpter, 286 AD2d 450, 452; People v Santiago, 272 AD2d 418).
In any event, the defendant's challenge was properly denied because he failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating, under the third prong of the Batson analysis, that the facially genderneutral explanation given by the prosecutor for challenging the male juror was a pretext for gender discrimination ( see People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181-183; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 111; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d at 853; People v Sumpter, 286 AD2d at 452; People v Sedney, 254 AD2d 376).