Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officers was proper (see, People v Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436). In light of the testimony of the officers regarding their continued assignment as undercover officers in the vicinity of the courthouse in Queens, the precautions they took to protect their identities when entering the courthouse, as well as their particularized concerns regarding lost subjects and potential trials, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering the closure of the courtroom (see, People v Zamora, 211 A.D.2d 834; People v Arroyo, 208 A.D.2d 940).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's intentional participation in the sale was demonstrated by his statement that he was "working" in response to the undercover officer's inquiry, his questioning the undercover officer as to what the officer wanted to purchase and as to whether the undercover had ever bought in the area before, and his directing a confederate to serve the undercover (see, People v Valentin, 198 A.D.2d 315, 316). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel on the ground that the trial counsel failed to request a circumstantial evidence charge (see, People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187). Where, as here, there was direct evidence of the defendant's guilt, a circumstantial evidence charge was unwarranted (see, People v Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 992). Miller, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.