From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1994
208 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the court's closing of the courtroom during the undercover police officer's testimony is without merit. The evidence presented was that there were several cases in Queens County on which the undercover officer had worked in which arrests had not yet been made, that the officer expected to return to undercover work, and that his safety would have been jeopardized if he testified in open court. This evidence was sufficiently specific to warrant a closing of the courtroom during the officer's testimony (cf., People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1994
208 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Arroyo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SERGIO ARROYO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 31, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 863

Citing Cases

People v. Simmons

Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officers was proper (see, People v…

People v. Reddi [2d Dept 1999

The officer testified that he would be returning to the area of the defendant's arrest as an undercover…