Opinion
September 25, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
We find that the automobile in which the defendant was a passenger had been lawfully stopped by the police (see, People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Gonzalez, 116 A.D.2d 661). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that the stop was not based upon an anonymous telephone call but a telephoned complaint by an identified, off-duty, New York City policeman. Consequently, the police officers properly seized a handgun, which was observed in plain view, from the automobile (see, People v. Rodriguez, 130 A.D.2d 596; People v. O'Quinn, 123 A.D.2d 332) and another handgun which was found during a subsequent lawful search of the automobile. Therefore, suppression of the handguns was properly denied.
The defendant's further assertion that the hearing court erred when it closed the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is without merit. Since there was no trial objection to the closure of the courtroom, this claim is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Flores, 152 A.D.2d 704). In any event, the closure of the courtroom was proper since the trial court conducted a hearing during which it was established that the undercover officer was still engaged in pending investigations, and closure was necessary to protect his safety as well as the integrity of the ongoing operations (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911; People v. Gonzalez, 135 A.D.2d 829; People v Flores, supra; People v. Legette, 153 A.D.2d 760).
The defendant's final contention, that the sentence imposed should be reduced, is unpersuasive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; cf., People v. Moretto, 143 A.D.2d 369). Mollen, P.J., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.