DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During jury selection, the defense raised an objection pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79), regarding the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude black panelists from the jury. The prosecution satisfied its obligation to provide facially race-neutral explanations for its challenges (see, People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 104). The burden then shifted to the defendant to show that the explanations offered were pretextual (see, Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765; People v. Allen, supra, at 104; People v. Moore, 231 A.D.2d 532; People v. Rudd, 225 A.D.2d 71 0; People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84). The defendant's contentions on appeal with respect to the explanations offered are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not address the merits of the prosecution's facially-neutral explanations at trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Allen, supra, at 111). In any event, the explanations were not pretextual. Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court failed to require the People to provide race-neutral explanations for their peremptory challenges to certain jurors during the first two rounds of voir dire, after the court ruled in the third round that a prima facie case of discrimination was established. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defense counsel never requested explanations for the challenges exercised during the first two rounds (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Caston, 239 A.D.2d 355; People v. Font, 223 A.D.2d 600, 600-601; People v. Negron, 214 A.D.2d 588; People v. Bosquez, 211 A.D.2d 727; People v. Cruz, 200 A.D.2d 581).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.