Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's constitutional and statutory right to have a petit jury "selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community" was not violated (Judiciary Law § 500; People v Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, cert denied 466 U.S. 951). At his pretrial hearing, the defendant failed to show that blacks between the ages of 18 and 21 years old constituted a recognizable group in the community (see, People v. Chesler, 91 Misc.2d 551, revd on other grounds 71 A.D.2d 792; People v. Rosado, 89 Misc.2d 61; People v. Attica Bros., 79 Misc.2d 492; see also, Barber v Ponte, 772 F.2d 982 [en banc]), or that their underrepresentation in the jury pool was caused by systematic exclusion (see, People v. Guzman, supra). While the county's practice of soliciting the names and addresses of recent high school graduates to supplement its list of potential jurors drawn from other sources (see, Judiciary Law § 506) was concededly "poorly administered", the hearing record also indicates that many high schools declined to respond to the solicitation, a factor which rebuts the appearance of intentional discrimination (see, People v. Guzman, supra).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.