Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.
The defendant argues that the court committed reversible error in failing to excuse a juror who expressed prejudice against drug users and sellers during voir dire. We agree.
During the voir dire, the prospective juror stated "I don't like dope pushers or people who use dope". Although he stated that he would try to render an impartial verdict, this was insufficient to rehabilitate him, especially in light of his statement that he might hold the defendant's past involvement with drugs against him even if the People did not prove him guilty (see, People v Lawrence, 159 A.D.2d 518, 519). These remarks indicated that he had a state of mind likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at trial (CPL 270.20 [b]; see, People v Torpey, 63 N.Y.2d 361; People v Lawrence, supra).
The defendant's challenge for cause was denied, necessitating defense counsel to use one of his peremptory challenges to have this juror excused. Because defense counsel exhausted all of his peremptory challenges before the selection of the jury was completed, this error may not be deemed harmless (see, People v Torpey, supra; People v Lawrence, supra).
We find that the People disproved the defendant's agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not pass upon the defendant's remaining contentions in light of our reversal and ordering of a new trial. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.