Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defense counsel in this case used several of his peremptory challenges to excuse white prospective jurors from the jury panel. The prosecutor claimed that the defense counsel's peremptory challenges evidenced a pattern of exclusion of white males. The Supreme Court accepted several of the defense counsel's explanations, but the court found that the reason proffered with respect to juror number 12 was not racially neutral, and it seated him over the defense counsel's objections. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court erred in so doing. We disagree.
The court's finding that the defense counsel's excuse was pretextual is entitled to great deference (see, People v Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462). The defense counsel stated that he challenged juror number 12 because he resided in the same community where the crime occurred. The juror, in fact, resided in an adjoining community. Moreover, the defense counsel failed to establish that the juror was familiar with the location of the crime or that any such familiarity would have affected his ability to serve. Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.