Opinion
March 10, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.).
Because the testimony of the arresting officer was credited by the hearing court and there were no "substantial questions concerning the legality of the police conduct in making the arrest", probable cause for defendant's arrest was established and there was no need for the undercover officer to testify or to be made available to defendant (People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 53, cert denied 469 U.S. 852).
The People provided ample justification for the closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony. The undercover officer testified that he had been working in the specific area where the crime took place for the past month; that he expected to go back there within a day after his trial testimony; that he had purchased drugs in the same building where this crime occurred just one week earlier; that he purchased drugs from the immediate area of this building about 20 times in the past year; that he "[d]efinitely" expected to go back to that area to buy drugs; that he had previously been approached by ex-defendants on the street who had attempted to warn others that he was a police officer; and that he feared for his life and safety as well as the lives and safety of his fellow officers should he be recognized. The trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, in these circumstances, testifying in an open courtroom might endanger the undercover officer's safety (People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436).
We have considered defendant's remaining claim and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.