DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror possessed a "state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial" (CPL 270.20[b]), or that there was a "substantial risk" that she would be unable to remain impartial (People v. Harris, 247 A.D.2d 630; see People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882). Upon our review of the transcript of the voir dire proceedings as a whole and giving due deference to the determination of the Supreme Court, we conclude that the defendant's challenge for cause was properly denied (see People v. Harris, supra at 632).
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.