Opinion
November 10, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael A. Corriero, J.).
The court's decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer was based on a sufficient factual showing (People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443), and the same facts justified exclusion of defendant's family (compare, People v. Santos, 154 A.D.2d 284, 285-286, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 817, with People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 58-59). While we agree that exclusion of defense counsel's colleagues or supervisors would be overbroad (People v. Mercer [Nathaniel], 204 A.D.2d 741), no such ruling was made. A Legal Aid attorney other than trial counsel was present and permitted to remain, and the court merely indicated that any latecoming colleagues who might arrive in the midst of the undercover officer's testimony would be excluded as an administrative measure to avoid disruption. Such a ruling does not constitute a "closure" of the proceedings (People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 416, cert denied 487 U.S. 1239; People v. Glover, 60 N.Y.2d 783, 785, cert denied 466 U.S. 975).
Defendant's argument that he was prejudiced by the belated disclosure of exculpatory evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that defendant was afforded ample opportunity to make use of this evidence (People v. Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868, 870).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.