Opinion
March 11, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; People v Holmes, 104 A.D.2d 1049).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in denying his motion for a Wade hearing. The defendant was arrested based on a description provided by an undercover police officer who was involved in a face-to-face drug transaction with him. The undercover officer identified the defendant at the station house approximately two hours after the drug transaction. Under the circumstances, no hearing on the issue of suggestiveness of the identification was required (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; cf., People v Gordon, 76 N.Y.2d 595).
In addition, we find that the court did not err when it closed the courtroom during the undercover police officer's testimony. Prior to closing the courtroom, the court conducted a hearing at which it was established that the undercover officer was still engaged in undercover investigations in Brooklyn and that closure was necessary to protect his safety and the integrity of the ongoing operations (see, People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946; People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911; People v Richards, 157 A.D.2d 753; People v Flores, 152 A.D.2d 704).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Rivers, 169 A.D.2d 883; People v Thomas, 162 A.D.2d 822; People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44; People v Moses, 126 A.D.2d 755). Bracken, J.P., Brown, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.