Opinion
September 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.).
Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference ( People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to establish defendant's guilt of possession of drugs with intent to sell them. The evidence of the codefendant's completed sale to the undercover officer in defendant's presence and of defendant's subsequent reprimand of the codefendant for having sold to someone who might be a police officer was properly admitted, since it was "inextricably interwoven" with the testimony concerning the negotiations between defendant and the undercover ( People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368), and its prejudicial impact as proof of an uncharged crime was outweighed by its probative value in proving that defendant possessed drugs with the intent to sell them ( see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242). The courtroom was properly closed during the testimony of the undercover officer based on her Hinton hearing testimony that she was involved in numerous ongoing longterm investigations in the area of defendant's arrest and had been threatened on prior occasions by buy subjects ( People v Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v Mason, 216 A.D.2d 149).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.