Opinion
December 16, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations.
Since defendant requested and accepted an adverse inference charge regarding the People's failure to produce an arrest photograph, and sought no other relief, he has waived appellate review of his challenge to the sufficiency of that sanction ( People v. Alvarez, 198 A.D.2d 171, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 802). In any event, that sanction was sufficient, since there was no bad faith on the part of the prosecution and no proof that the missing photograph would have supported the defense position that defendant had been misidentified as the drug dealer.
Defendant's current challenge to the closure of the courtroom during the undercover officers testimony is unpreserved, since he never objected to closure and expressly declined to be heard at the end of the hearing. In any event, closure was proper, since the officers Hinton hearing testimony demonstrated that he then was working in a precinct that was in close proximity to the area where defendant had been arrested, and that he could be reassigned to the latter area; that he had many pending cases from his former assignment area; and that he found it necessary to protect his undercover status by, among other things, entering the courthouse through a non-public doorway ( see, People v. Rash, 238 A.D.2d 195, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 897).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.