DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's Batson challenge (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) was properly denied as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 268). In support of the Batson application, the defendant noted only that the prosecutor used four of five peremptory challenges against black potential jurors and that each of those persons had indicated that they could be fair. In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the Supreme Court correctly found that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see, People v. Phillips, 259 A.D.2d 565; People v. Willingham, 253 A.D.2d 533).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel when the prosecution made a Batson-Kern challenge (see, People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v. Hawthorne, 80 N.Y.2d 873; People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431; People v. McCoy, 210 A.D.2d 508; People v. Dixon, 202 A.D.2d 12).
We note, however, this court's disapproval of the manner in which the Supreme Court conducted the voir dire.
JOY, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.