Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was also insufficient to establish the Supreme Court's geographic jurisdiction are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Moore, 46 N.Y.2d 1; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). The evidence presented was also sufficient to establish the Supreme Court's geographic jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence (see, CPL 20.40; People v Ribowsky, 77 N.Y.2d 284; People v Moore, supra).
The Supreme Court properly ordered the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer. The undercover officer testified at a closed hearing that he still worked undercover in the immediate vicinity of the defendant's arrest, that he had lost several subjects in the past and had ongoing investigations, that he routinely entered courthouses through a back door to conceal his identity, and that his safety and effectiveness depended on the continued secrecy of his identity as an undercover officer (see, People v Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v Anderson, 210 A.D.2d 417; People v Cepeda, 209 A.D.2d 631; People v Mitchell, 209 A.D.2d 444; People v Crowder, 207 A.D.2d 559; People v James, 207 A.D.2d 564).
The defendant's further contention that the Supreme Court failed to give adequate cautionary instructions to the jury concerning note-taking is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Stewart, 179 A.D.2d 731, affd 81 N.Y.2d 877; People v DiLuca, 85 A.D.2d 439). In any event, any error was harmless (see, People v Stewart, supra; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Finally, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.