
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Harris, Appellant.
    [767 NYS2d 725]
   Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Noonan, J.), entered October 28, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People violated their obligations under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83, 87 [1963]) to disclose information regarding a favorable plea agreement used to induce a prosecution witness to testify against defendant (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Griffin, 129 AD2d 975 [1987], lv denied 69 NY2d 1004 [1987]). Moreover, to the extent that defendant’s contention is based upon material outside the trial record, it is more appropriately raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Wilson, 283 AD2d 339, 340 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 644 [2001]). We reject the contentions of defendant that he established the affirmative defense to felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [3] [a]-[d]) by a preponderance of the evidence and that the jury’s verdict on the felony murder counts of the indictment is contrary to the weight of the evidence (see People v Jeanty, 268 AD2d 675, 677 [2000], lv denied 94 NY2d 949 [2000]). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [2]) and attempted robbery in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 160.15 [1]). Further, the verdict on those counts is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived him of a fair trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Wright, 269 AD2d 831 [2000], lv denied 94 NY2d 954 [2000]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial and due process of law as the result of Supreme Court’s denial of his Batson challenges with respect to two African-American prospective jurors. The court properly determined that the prosecutor’s explanations for exercising peremptory challenges with respect to those jurors were race-neutral, and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that those explanations were pretextual (see People v Welch, 298 AD2d 903 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 565 [2002]; see generally People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422 [2003]). The court properly admitted in evidence the hearsay statements of a codefendant as declarations of a coconspirator during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy (see People v Wolf, 98 NY2d 105, 118 [2002]; People v Moore, 275 AD2d 969, 969-970 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 936 [2000]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Pine, Wisner and Gorski, JJ.  