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 African-American panelists from the jury. The prosecution offered raceneutral explanations for each challenge, rendering the issue of the prima facie showing academic ( see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359; People v. Jones, 88 N.Y.2d 172; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 515; People v. Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485) and satisfying its obligation to provide facially race-neutral explanations for its challenges ( see, People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 104). The burden then returned to the defense to show that the explanations offered were pretextual ( see, Purkett v. Elem, 514 US ___, 115 S Ct 1769; People v. Allen, supra). The issues on appeal with respect to nearly all of the explanations are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant's arguments made at trial did not address the merits of the prosecution's facially-neutral explanations ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Allen, supra, at 111). In any event, upon this Court's review of the record, we conclude that the explanations offered were not pretextual.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.