At a Hinton hearing (see People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the undercover detectives who had participated in the "buy and bust" operation that resulted in the defendant's arrest indicated that they were still conducting undercover operations in the area where the arrest took place. The detectives also testified that they had been threatened by subjects in that area, and had lost subjects from that area. Contrary to the contention of the defendant, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in excluding the general public from the courtroom during the detectives' trial testimony (see People v. Wilson, 251 A.D.2d 688; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310; People v. Monroig, 223 A.D.2d 730), and specifically excluding her mother and friend, who lived within the area of the undercover operations and could identify the detectives and jeopardize their safety (see People v. Blake, 284 A.D.2d 339; People v. Feliciano, 228 A.D.2d 519; People v. Dorcas, 218 A.D.2d 813). The defendant's contentions regarding the adequacy of the Supreme Court's findings in support of its closure order are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Molina, 297 A.D.2d 601, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 770), and, in any event, are without merit.
The officer testified, inter alia, that he had ongoing undercover operations and investigations within the area of the arrest, that he would be returning to the area where the arrest took place, and that if his identity was revealed, his safety and cases would be jeopardized. The officer also testified that he had lost subjects and that he had never testified in open court before (see People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Although the family members who the defendant requested to be present during the officer's testimony did not have any criminal history, they lived within the area of the undercover operations and the officer testified that he feared that they would be able to identify him during these operations, jeopardizing himself and his team. Moreover, the court ordered a narrowly-tailored alternative to closure with regard to the defendant's family, allowing them to remain in the courtroom during the officer's testimony provided that a blackboard was placed to block their view of the undercover officer.
When the undercover officer entered the courtroom, he alerted the prosecutor that he recognized one of the defendant's sisters and another person and he testified that he would be very concerned if these spectators were to see him. The undercover officer also testified that he was involved in long-term operations in the location where the defendant was arrested and overlapping areas, he had ongoing cases where subjects were still at large, and he had 9 or 10 cases pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County (see People v. Rodriguez, 258 A.D.2d 483; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Thus, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in utilizing a screen during the testimony of the undercover officer as an alternative to closure of the courtroom.
It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny the defendant's request for additional peremptory challenges ( see, People v. Campo, 156 A.D.2d 375; People v. Rivera, 137 A.D.2d 634). In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly ordered partial closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Furthermore, no reasonable view of the evidence supports the defendant's contention that he was entitled to an agency charge ( see, People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Gaines, 249 A.D.2d 323). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
The officer testified that he would be returning to the area where the arrest took place — an area where he had been threatened — and that if his identity was revealed that information could be disseminated in that area, resulting in his safety being jeopardized. The officer also testified that he had lost subjects and that he had never testified in open court before ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, 522 U.S. 1002; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Moreover, the court ordered an alternative to closure with regard to the defendant's family, allowing them to remain in the courtroom during the officer's testimony provided that a screen was placed so as to block their view of the undercover officer ( see, People v. Rivera, 237 A.D.2d 178). Accordingly, the defendant was not deprived of his right to a public trial.
The undercover officer testified at a Hinton hearing that he continued to work in an undercover capacity in the area where the defendant was arrested, that several of his cases from the area of the defendant's arrest were pending or remained open with lost subjects, and that he had traveled to the courthouse in an unmarked car and entered the building through a side entrance because of safety considerations. The court also noted that four of the six cases on the calendar that day were drug cases from the area of the defendant's arrest and three of those defendants were not in custody ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Moreover, an officer was posted outside the courtroom to inquire as to anyone who attempted to enter the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in closing the courtroom during the testimony of undercover police officer 787 is not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Martinez, 248 A.D.2d 730; People v. Latta, 222 A.D.2d 303, 304). In any event, the defendant's argument is without merit ( see, People v. Jacobs, 251 A.D.2d 427; People v. Green, 244 A.D.2d 571; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
The testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911) established that the officer was to return to the arrest area for future undercover work, had been threatened previously, had been assaulted by a lost subject who identified him as a police officer, and took precautions to keep his identity secret whenever his presence was required at hearings or trials. Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer was therefore warranted here (see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 500, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443; People v. Pagan, 245 A.D.2d 312; People v. Green, 244 A.D.2d 571; People v. Whiteside, 243 A.D.2d 744; People v. Pryor, 243 A.D.2d 656; People v. Pastrana, 237 A.D.2d 628; People v. Diaz, 237 A.D.2d 457; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). The defendant's Rosario claim is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit.
05; People v. Hammond, 208 A.D.2d 559). In any event, the court's determination in this regard was proper ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310; People v. Wells, 225 A.D.2d 567; People v. Caraballo, 221 A.D.2d 553; People v. Thompson, 202 A.D.2d 454). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, based on matters dehors the record, without merit, or do not warrant reversal ( see, People v. Pondexter, 88 N.Y.2d 363; People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610; People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Bostic, 230 A.D.2d 804; People v. Clausell, 223 A.D.2d 598; People v. Ramos, 215 A.D.2d 785; People v. Karze, 207 A.D.2d 846; People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248; People v. Carroll, 181 A.D.2d 904; People v. Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835).
The Supreme Court's determination that the purportedly "race-neutral" reasons proffered by the defense were in fact mere pretexts for racial discrimination is supported by the record ( see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352; Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559; People v. Jones, 204 A.D.2d 486; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462). Furthermore, the trial court's closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony was proper ( see, People v Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310; People v. Wells, 225 A.D.2d 567). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.