Opinion
October 10, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, the defendant made a general objection to the prosecution's request to close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. The defense counsel made no request for a hearing nor did he contest the People's assertion that the witness's safety would be jeopardized if his identity was made known to the public (see, People v Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 550; People v Policano, 139 A.D.2d 773). Nevertheless, the court conducted a hearing which demonstrated that the undercover officer was at the time of trial engaged in several pending investigations and that closure was necessary to protect his safety and the integrity of his ongoing operations (see, People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946; People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911; People v Gonzalez, 135 A.D.2d 829). On this record, we find that the court properly granted the People's request for closure, including the exclusion of the defendant's parents during such closure.
We have examined the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit. Rubin, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.