Opinion
February 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.).
Contrary to defendant's contention, she was not deprived of her right to a public trial by the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers. After a hearing as to each officer (People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the court properly concluded that closure was necessary because both officers had received threats of physical harm as a result of their extensive narcotics-related work, expressed fear that public disclosure of their identities would compromise their safety, and were still engaged in undercover work in the surrounding northern Brooklyn communities where defendant was arrested (see, People v Carter, 162 A.D.2d 218, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 984). That the officers were testifying in a Manhattan courtroom, rather than one in Kings County where the crime allegedly occurred and the officers are assigned, does not change the result given the proximity and ease of access between the two counties (cf., People v Brown, 172 A.D.2d 844), especially in light of the substantial number of narcotics cases from the five counties of the City of New York being tried in the Central Narcotics Parts in New York County.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.