Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues, as did his codefendant (see, People v Scott, 197 A.D.2d 644 [decided herewith]), that during the jury selection process, the prosecutor improperly exercised several of his peremptory challenges in order to remove black prospective jurors. We find that during the jury selection process, the defendants failed to articulate and develop all the grounds, both factual and legal, supporting their claim. Their perfunctory statement that 10 excluded prospective jurors were black did not establish the existence of facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor had used his peremptory challenges to exclude individuals because of their race (see, People v. Scott, supra; see also, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 268; People v. Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, we find that the People satisfied their burden of disproving the defendant's alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374). Although the defendant presented several alibi witnesses, it cannot be said that the trier of fact improperly discredited their testimony (see, People v. Domond, 193 A.D.2d 692; People v Edens, 181 A.D.2d 741). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Thompson, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.