Opinion
March 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court erred in rendering its Sandoval ruling. We disagree. A Sandoval ruling is addressed to the sound discretion of the hearing court (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). We find the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion. The record indicates that the trial court weighed the competing factors when it limited inquiry on cross-examination to five misdemeanors and two drug-related felonies without discussion of the underlying facts (see, People v. Pavao, supra; People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v Sandoval, supra). Further, the mere similarity between the prior felony convictions and the crime charged was insufficient to preclude its use on cross-examination (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Hendrix, 44 N.Y.2d 658).
The defendant contends that the undercover officer's testimony regarding the description of the seller which he transmitted to the arresting officer by radio constitutes bolstering in violation of People v. Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471). This argument is without merit. The testimony, together with that of the arresting officer who received the description, provided a necessary explanation of the events which precipitated the defendant's arrest (see, People v. Cardona, 173 A.D.2d 364; People v Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, affd 77 N.Y.2d 976; People v Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191; People v. Love, 92 A.D.2d 551).
The defendant further contends that the court's charge on the issue identification was inadequate. We disagree. The Supreme Court's identification charge was adequate under the circumstances of this case since the court instructed the jury that identification had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and provided the jury with general instructions in weighing a witness's credibility (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Foxworth, 197 A.D.2d 703; People v. Nichols, 191 A.D.2d 518).
The closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer was proper, since it was determined at a hearing that the undercover officer was still operating in a particular location readily accessible to the defendant and closure was necessary to protect his safety and the integrity of ongoing investigations (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. McLennon, 156 A.D.2d 478; People v. Bowden, 156 A.D.2d 372; People v. Osborne, 154 A.D.2d 484). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.