Opinion
Argued May 6, 1976
Decided June 3, 1976
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, ALLEN M. MYERS, J.
Susan A. Powers and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Richard H. Girgenti, Peter L. Zimroth and Robert M. Pitler of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM. Order affirmed. The informant was not a material witness to the actual drug transactions. The alibi defense was insufficient to cast a significant doubt on the police testimony of numerous direct meetings, conversations, and transactions with defendant. Moreover, the ex parte in camera testimony, received under a one-time practice no longer preferred, instead of offering a likelihood of obtaining exculpatory testimony from the informant bolstered the prosecution's case. (See, generally, People v Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, 168-169, cert den 419 U.S. 1012; see, also, People v Pena, 37 N.Y.2d 642.) Hence, there was no error in the exercise of discretion by the trial court in protecting the identity of the informant, and thus his continued usefulness, and perhaps his safety.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.