Opinion
December 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.).
The trial court appropriately closed the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer, based on the officer's testimony at a Hinton hearing, that he was then actively engaged in undercover work in the particular area of the instant arrest, which was readily accessible from the New York County courthouse, and that out of approximately 20 arrests made in the area based upon his undercover activities, about half were still pending. In these circumstances, closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony was warranted to avoid endangering his safety ( People v Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443).
Police testimony elicited in accordance with the trial court's prior Ventimiglia ruling, regarding observation of a brief encounter between defendant and his companion and an unidentified couple just prior to the charged drug sale, without any mention of an alleged exchange, did not constitute evidence of an uncharged crime, and was properly admissible as probative of the contested events leading to defendant's arrest ( see, People v Torres, 170 A.D.2d 316, 317, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 958).
The police testimony regarding a typical buy and bust operation in no way suggested a link between defendant and general drug activity, and was properly admitted to demonstrate that the general area of defendant's arrest was targeted by the police because of community complaints and as useful background information explaining police presence and conduct ( People v Garcia, 213 A.D.2d 249, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 973). In any event, any prejudice to defendant was effectively eliminated by the trial court's prompt limiting instructions, presumably understood and followed by the jury ( see, People v Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.