ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly disallowed one of his peremptory challenges during jury selection as being discriminatory (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). The defense counsel did not meet his burden of proffering a facially race-neutral reason for his peremptory challenge, since he failed to articulate a basis for excluding the prospective juror (see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's justification charge was improper is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to object to the charge (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gurganious, 214 A.D.2d 681). In any event, the charge was given after consultation with, and with the consent of, the defense counsel. Furthermore, when viewed in its entirety, the charge adequately conveyed the appropriate standard to the jury (see, People v. Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555; People v. Joseph, 253 A.D.2d 529).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.