Opinion
November 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On April 4, 1990, an undercover officer observed the defendant sell a package of heroin to another individual. On appeal, the defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court allowed the undercover officer who observed the sale to testify in a closed courtroom.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony was proper. After conducting a Hinton hearing (People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), during which the undercover officer testified that he was still active in a Queens undercover operation and was involved in pending cases in Queens courts, the trial court concluded that the closure was necessary to protect the officer's safety and that of his family. We have consistently upheld such closures under similar circumstances; the trial court's conclusion herein was warranted (see, People v Jackson, 178 A.D.2d 548, 549; People v Hazzard, 177 A.D.2d 594, 595; People v Glaude, 176 A.D.2d 346; People v Richards, 157 A.D.2d 753, affd 77 N.Y.2d 969).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), without merit (see, People v Ellsworth, 176 A.D.2d 127, 128; People v Roman, 171 A.D.2d 562), or harmless in light of the undercover officer's eyewitness testimony concerning the sale and the recovery of the contraband on the person of the purchaser shortly thereafter (see, People v Ellsworth, supra; People v Matos, 165 A.D.2d 767, 768). Thompspon, J.P., Bracken, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.