MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby Ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People violated their obligations under Brady v Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83, 87) to disclose information regarding a favorable plea agreement used to induce a prosecution witness to testify against defendant ( see CPL 470.05; People v Griffin, 129 A.D.2d 975, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1004). Moreover, to the extent that defendant's contention is based upon material outside the trial record, it is more appropriately raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 ( see People v Wilson, 283 A.D.2d 339, 340, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 644). We reject the contentions of defendant that he established the affirmative defense to felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [a]-[d]) by a preponderance of the evidence and that the jury's verdict on the felony murder counts of the indictment is contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see People v Jeanty, 268 A.D.2d 675, 677, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 949). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [2]) and attempted robbery in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 160.15 [1]). Further, the verdict on those counts is not contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived him of a fair trial ( see CPL 470.05; People v Wright, 269 A.D.2d 831, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 954), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial and due process of law as the result of Supreme Court's denial of his Batson challenges with respect to two African-American prospective jurors. The court properly determined that the prosecutor's explanations for exercising peremptory challenges with respect to those jurors were race-neutral, and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that those explanations were pretextual ( see People v Welch, 298 A.D.2d 903, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 565; see generally People v Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 422). The court properly admitted in evidence the hearsay statements of a codefendant as declarations of a coconspirator during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy ( see People v Wolf, 98 N.Y.2d 105, 118; People v Moore, 275 A.D.2d 969, 969-970, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 936) . Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.