—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, he was not deprived of his constitutional right to be present at all stages of his trial. Despite being warned of the importance of being present in the courtroom,
The prosecutor’s peremptory challenges to two black jurors did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to equal protection under Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79). The prosecutor’s explanations for the challenges were race-neutral and were not pretextual (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 356-358, affd 500 US 352; People v Wint, 237 AD2d 195, 198, lv denied 89 NY2d 1103; People v Anaya, 206 AD2d 380, lv denied 84 NY2d 865).
The court árticulated a reasonable basis for requiring defendant to remain in handcuffs during a portion of the trial and thus acted within its discretion in restraining defendant (see, People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934; People v Houk, 222 AD2d 1074, 1075; People v Freeman, 184 AD2d 864, lv denied 80 NY2d 903). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Criminal Mischief, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Hurlbutt, JJ.