Opinion
August 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a public trial (see, US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4; People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946) because the Supreme Court excluded his girlfriend from the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. We agree. During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his girlfriend. When a defendant seeks to limit closure to permit the attendance of certain individuals, the People must present evidence that those individuals threaten the safety of the witness (see, People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532; People v. Johnson, 222 A.D.2d 456). Although the undercover officer would be returning to the area in which the defendant was arrested, nothing in the record demonstrates that the girlfriend resided or worked in that area. Nor did the People present sufficient evidence that the girlfriend posed a threat to the officer. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
Miller, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.