Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the second round of voir dire, the defense counsel exercised 8 of 9 peremptory challenges against white jurors. The defense counsel did not object to the court's finding of a prima facie reverse- Batson violation, but asserted that it had challenged three of these white jurors because of relatives who were in law enforcement, and/or their crime-victim status. The trial court was then required to make a determination as to whether or not the proffered explanations were pretextual (see, People v Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101). The court found that the defense counsel had failed to challenge black venirepersons who either had relatives in law enforcement or had been crime victims. The court denied those three peremptory challenges, finding the proffered explanations to be pretextual (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 N.Y.2d 873; People v McCoy, 210 A.D.2d 508; People v Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431; People v Dixon, 202 A.D.2d 12; People v Barnes, 198 A.D.2d 289). This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and "will not be disturbed" where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559; People v Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485; People v Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677; People v Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462).
We agree with the trial court's finding that in three instances the defendant improperly used his peremptory challenges, and therefore reject the defendant's challenge to the court's ruling.
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.