Opinion
15691, 602/07
07-09-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julio CRUZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven R. Berko of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alice Wiseman of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven R. Berko of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alice Wiseman of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, SAXE, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Opinion Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered July 8, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (four counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). The evidence amply established that defendant was a participant in the drug sale. In addition to evidence plainly supporting the inference that defendant acted as a lookout during the sale, the police investigation established that defendant was part of an ongoing drug-trafficking operation, and that his role included, among other things, storing drugs in his apartment. In sum, “[d]efendant's entire course of conduct and interactions with his codefendants supported the conclusion that he was a participant in a drug operation, and that he assisted the others by acting as a lookout” (People v. Eduardo, 44 A.D.3d 371, 372, 844 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept.2007], affd. 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 [2008] ).
For the reasons stated in People v. Tate, 130 A.D.3d 505, 14 N.Y.S.3d 332 [1st Dept.2015] [decided simultaneously herewith], we find that defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court was required to provide the public with notice of an impending hearing on the closure of the courtroom during an undercover officer's testimony, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice, and we also find that defendant lacks standing to assert such a claim.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims concerning closure of the courtroom (see generally Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 [1984] ; People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 498–499, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492, cert. denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413 [1997] ).