The court properly granted the People's Batson application ( Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638, cert denied 498 US 824). The record supports the court's finding of pretext, and this finding, based primarily on the court's assessment of counsel's credibility, is entitled to great deference ( see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, affd 500 US 352, 356-357). Counsel's credibility in this regard was undermined by her failure to ask the panelist at issue any follow-up questions pertinent to the gender-neutral reason advanced for the peremptory challenge.
During jury selection, when defense counsel gave the panel a misleading impression of the elements of the crimes charged, the court properly gave the panel a correct explanation of those elements. Defendant's remaining challenges to the court's preliminary remarks to the prospective jurors are unpreserved ( see People v Brown, 7 NY3d 880), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the preliminary instructions did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Harper, 32 AD3d 16, 19, affd 7 NY3d 882).
We perceive no basis to reduce defendant's sentence.
Defendant's pro se contention is without merit.