DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The People did not meet their burden of establishing that the police officers' warrantless entry into the defendant's home was made with consent or was justified by exigent circumstances (see,Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 ; People v. Levan, 62 N.Y.2d 139, 142 ). However, since the defendant's statements were sufficiently attenuated from his arrest (see, People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982 ), that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress those statements was properly denied.
The defendant's contention regarding the court's refusal to discharge a juror as grossly unqualified is without merit. The standard under CPL 270.35 for discharging a juror as grossly unqualified to serve "is satisfied only `when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict'" (People v. Radtke, 219 A.D.2d 739 , quoting People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 298 ; see,People v. Bolden, 197 A.D.2d 528 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in refusing to discharge the subject juror, as she was not grossly unqualified to serve (cf., People v. Huntley, 237 A.D.2d 533 ; People v. Rodriguez, 71 N.Y.2d 214 ; see, People v. Corrica, 237 A.D.2d 372 ).