Opinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by closing the courtroom to the public during the testimony of the undercover officer (People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). The officer testified that he continued to work in the area where the transaction involving defendant took place (People v Santos, 154 A.D.2d 284, 285, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 817), and the court, itself, noted that its active trial calendar included drug cases. Defendant's argument that a remark by the prosecutor in summation shifted the burden of proof and suggested that defendant had an obligation to testify is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to do so, we would find it to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.