Opinion
October 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.).
Upon remittitur from this Court for a Dunaway hearing ( 247 A.D.2d 336), the trial court concluded that there was probable cause to pursue and arrest defendant, and we agree. The arresting officer acted on reliable information from the observing undercover officer ( see, People v. Rosario, 162 A.D.2d 388, affd 78 N.Y.2d 583, cert denied 502 U.S. 1109) that defendant, rather than being an innocent bystander, had actually participated in the negotiations leading to the transaction ( cf., Matter of Nelson S., 196 A.D.2d 422). His immediate flight, when approached by police, merely intensified the latter's founded suspicion that defendant had been involved in criminal activity, and provided the necessary predicate for pursuit ( People v. Sierra, 83 N.Y.2d 928).
Defendant has additionally challenged the closure of the courtroom during testimony by the undercover officers. That ruling was justified in light of the fact that both officers were still involved in high-risk undercover activities, at the time of trial, in the same neighborhood where this incident had taken place ( People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.