It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (Penal Law § 135.10) and four counts of rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [1]). Following opening statements by the People and defense counsel at trial, defendant entered a plea of guilty. He thus forfeited his present challenge to County Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. McCorkle, 298 AD2d 848, lv denied 99 NY2d 561; People v. Nichols, 277 AD2d 715, 718; People v. Kilmer, 228 AD2d 808).
We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to remove a sworn juror, thereby denying defendant his rights to due process and a fair trial. We note that defendant's contention is properly before us despite the fact that defendant pleaded guilty after jury selection and opening statements ( see generally People v. Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-231). Pursuant to CPL 270.35 (1), "[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . ., the court must discharge such juror." "In concluding that a juror is grossly unqualified, the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on [his or] her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror's knowledge will prevent [him or] her from rendering an impartial verdict" ( People v. Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299). Here, the court questioned the sworn juror in chambers and, upon ascertaining that the juror's casual acquaintance with a witness years earlier would not affect the juror's ability to be fair and impartial, the court properly determined that the juror was not "grossly unqualified" to continue serving (CPL 270.35; see People v. Booker, 282 AD2d 201, lv denied 96 NY2d 916; People v. Davis, 248 AD2d 632, lv denied 92 NY2d 850). Finally, the sentence, which was less than the maximum allowable, is not unduly harsh or serve.