Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying two of his challenges to prospective jurors for cause. "`The determination as to whether a prospective juror can provide reasonable jury service in a given case is left largely to the discretion of the trial court, which can question and observe the prospective juror during voir dire'" (People v Toval, 216 A.D.2d 500, 501; People v Campbell, 216 A.D.2d 482; People v Pagan, 191 A.D.2d 651, 652; see also, People v Holder, 204 A.D.2d 482). The record reveals that neither prospective juror possessed a state of mind which would have precluded the defendant from receiving a fair trial (see, CPL 270.20).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.