Opinion
February 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, 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 ( see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94).
Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer was justified by his testimony that he was presently involved in ongoing investigations in the area in which this case occurred, that he continues to act as an undercover officer on a regular basis in the precise location where defendant was arrested, and that he had been threatened in the past ( see, People v. Mensah, 226 A.D.2d 161, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 989). The officer's testimony was sufficiently specific as to location. Furthermore, it was defendant's obligation to suggest any alternative procedures and defendant made no such suggestions ( People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 504-505, cert denied 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct 574).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.