Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in granting the People's challenge for cause of a prospective juror. Prospective jurors have a duty to answer voir dire questions truthfully ( see, People v. Cephus, 224 A.D.2d 706, 707; see also, Holland v. Blake, 38 A.D.2d 344, 345-346, affd 31 N.Y.2d 734). In the case of a challenge for cause of an unsworn juror, a trial court "should lean toward disqualifying a prospective juror of dubious impartiality" ( People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 651). The record establishes that the juror failed to disclose a criminal conviction during voir dire. It was within the court's discretion to determine that such failure showed that the juror had "a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial" (CPL 270.20 [b]; see, People v. Barber, 269 A.D.2d 758, 760). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.