MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly permitted the prosecutor to use the transcript of a telephone conversation illegally intercepted by a private citizen to impeach defendant on cross-examination ( see, People v. Hughes, 124 A.D.2d 344, 346-347, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 828; People v. Brooks, 56 A.D.2d 634; see generally, People v. Dixon, 228 A.D.2d 175, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1068). Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence of serious physical injury is legally sufficient to support the conviction of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10, [3]) and assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) ( see generally, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a police officer's warrantless entry into her residence. "The officer had reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency was at hand and a reasonable basis for associating that emergency with the area searched", and thus his entry into defendant's residence was justified by exigent circumstances ( People v. Longboat, 278 A.D.2d 836, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 802; see, People v. McKnight, 261 A.D.2d 926, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 826). Defendant failed to substantiate her contention that African-Americans were underrepresented in the jury pool or that such alleged underrepresentation was the result of intentional discrimination or systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the jury pool ( see, People v. Blanchard, 279 A.D.2d 808, 811, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 826; People v. Jordan, 261 A.D.2d 947, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1003). The record supports the court's determination that defendant waived her right to be present at the suppression hearing ( see, People v. Quamina, 161 A.D.2d 1110, 1111, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 943), and the court properly conducted the hearing in her absence ( see, People v. Walker, 254 A.D.2d 824, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1055). We further conclude that the court properly denied defendant's request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense to unlawful imprisonment set forth in Penal Law § 135.15. No reasonable view of the evidence supports that defense ( see generally, People v. Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 750). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.