Opinion
June 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his constitutional and statutory right to a public trial was violated when the trial court closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ortiz, 244 A.D.2d 435; People v. Brathwaite, 238 A.D.2d 125). In any event, based on the evidence adduced at the Hinton hearing, closure of the courtroom was proper ( see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). Both officers testified that they continued to work in the same geographical area involved in this case, were engaged in ongoing investigations in the area, had lost subjects in the area, and had previously received threats from drug sellers stemming from their undercover work. One officer stated that he had entered the courthouse through a private entrance. Thus, the proof established that the safety and effectiveness of the officers constituted an overriding interest which would likely be prejudiced in the absence of closure ( see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Rosario, 244 A.D.2d 579; People v. Green, 244 A.D.2d 571; People v. Harrison, 243 A.D.2d 315; People v. Pryor, 243 A.D.2d 656; People v. Evans, 243 A.D.2d 287; People v. Stevens, 242 A.D.2d 468).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.