Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial on the ground that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bowman, 185 A.D.2d 891; People v Campanella, 176 A.D.2d 813; People v Steans, 174 A.D.2d 582). In any event, even assuming that the defendant made a prima facie showing of discriminatory jury selection, the record supports the trial court's conclusion that the prosecutor articulated race-neutral reasons for excusing two black prospective jurors in question (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; People v Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824; People v Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd sub nom. Hernandez v New York 500 US ___, 111 S Ct 1859; People v McArthur, 178 A.D.2d 612; People v Howard, 143 A.D.2d 943; United States v Alvarado, 951 F.2d 22). We see no basis to disturb the trial court's decision to credit the explanations proffered by the prosecutor (see, Hernandez v New York, supra).
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 of the crime charged.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive in light of his lengthy criminal history (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.