Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
A defendant asserting a claim of unlawful discrimination under Batson v Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79), bears the initial burden of demonstrating, inter alia, "facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their race" (People v Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 266; Batson v Kentucky, supra, at 96-98; see also, People v Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875, 876). We find that no such demonstration was made. Although the prosecutor employed 6 of her 12 peremptory challenges against black venirepersons and 1 against an Hispanic venireperson, this pattern was insufficient to establish a pattern of discrimination against either blacks or Hispanics under the circumstances of this case (see, People v Childress, supra, at 267). No other facts are advanced by the defendant. The mere exercise of peremptory challenges here, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a "pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination" (People v Steele, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 325; cf., People v Bennett, 186 A.D.2d 812 [64% of black venirepersons excluded through use of peremptory challenges]). We therefore conclude that the Batson objection was properly overruled, and note that six blacks were ultimately seated on the jury.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179; People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Ayala, 165 A.D.2d 878; People v O'Connor, 154 A.D.2d 626; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.