DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly found that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for excluding black potential jurors were not pretextual (see,Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 353 ). Under the third step of the Batson analysis, the Supreme Court must "undertake a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available" (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 93 , quotingArlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 427 U.S. 252, 266 ), to determine whether the facially -neutral explanations offered by the prosecutor are legitimate and not a mere pretext for discrimination ( see, Hernandez v. New York, supra, at 359-360;People v. Giles, 237 A.D.2d 374 ; People v. Malik'El, 234 A.D.2d 566 ). Here, after conducting such an inquiry at the hearing held upon the remittitur, and weighing the relevant facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court found that the defendant had not sustained his burden of demonstrating that the disputed challenges were the product of purposeful discrimination (see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 181 ; People v. Queen, 258 A.D.2d 480 ). The record supports the determination of the Supreme Court, and we decline to disturb it (see, People v. Jackson, 249 A.D.2d 415 ; People v. McDougle, 230 A.D.2d 808 ).
We reject the defendant's contention that reversal is warranted because the People's CPL 710.30 notice failed to clearly advise him that a certain eyewitness had identified him from a photo array. The defendant in effect moved at the Wade hearing to suppress the prospective identification testimony of this eyewitness, and the Supreme Court conducted a full hearing on the fairness of the photo array from which both the eyewitness and another eyewitness, who was the subject of the People's CPL 710.30 notice, identified the defendant. Under these circumstances, the People's failure to provide notice can be excused (see, People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903 ; People v. Berry, 242 A.D.2d 540 ; People v. Fuentes, 240 A.D.2d 511 ). In any event, even if the Supreme Court's failure to preclude that eyewitness's in-court identification could be considered error, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Evans, 256 A.D.2d 520 ; People v. Bradshaw, 223 A.D.2d 651 ; People v. Winslow, 213 A.D.2d 435 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, KRAUSMAN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.