Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's Sixth Amendment challenge to the jury panel as underrepresentative of the black population of Nassau County was both procedurally and substantively inadequate and, hence, properly rejected by the trial court. The defendant's written submission contesting the composition of the panel simply asserted: "Pursuant to CPL 270.10, defendant TREVOR P. HAYE hereby challenges the panel herein based on racial imbalance namely, lack of black and/or minority panel members (3 out of approximately 72)", and, as such, did not comply with the statutory mandate requiring "a written detailed notice" (People v Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 41), specifying "the facts constituting the ground of challenge" (CPL 270.10). Even in the absence of this procedural obstacle, however, the defendant's failure to demonstrate that the claimed underrepresentation of blacks was the result of systematic exclusion, i.e., "inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized" (Duren v Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 366), requires rejection of his challenge (see, People v Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 411, cert denied 466 U.S. 951; People v Bessard, 148 A.D.2d 49; People v Waters, 125 A.D.2d 615).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.