Opinion
April 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in connection with a sale of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. Prior to the officer's testimony at trial, a hearing was held pursuant to People v Hinton ( 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911) to determine whether closure of the courtroom during that testimony was appropriate.
At the Hinton hearing, the officer testified that he expected to return to working undercover in the area of the defendant's arrest. He stated that he had several ongoing undercover investigations in that area in which the subjects had not yet been apprehended. He had also received threats from various subjects in that area that he would be killed if it was learned that he was a police officer. In addition, he came to the courthouse in an unmarked car, dressed in plain clothes, and was escorted in through a nonpublic entrance. Based on these circumstances, the trial court ordered the courtroom closed during the officer's testimony.
The defendant contends that these facts did not justify closure of the courtroom. We disagree. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the undercover officer's testimony sufficiently specified the dangers that he would be exposed to if his identity was discovered ( see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v Crowder, 207 A.D.2d 559). Accordingly, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in closing the courtroom during the undercover police officer's testimony (see, People v Crowder, supra).
Furthermore, the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to confront one of the People's expert witnesses, because his request for an interpreter was denied, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, this contention is without merit since the witness, a police chemist, responsively answered the defense counsel's questions ( see, People v. Ayala, 186 A.D.2d 577).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.