Opinion
September 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause was supplied by the radio transmissions from the purchasing undercover officer and the "ghost", which included a detailed description of the seller and his exact location. Upon the arrival of the arresting officer within two minutes of the transmission, defendant was the only person matching the description transmitted ( People v. Morales, 246 A.D.2d 396, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 943).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL, 440.10 motion, we find that defendant received meaningful representation, notwithstanding his attacks on counsel's trial strategy ( see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Doyle, 242 A.D.2d 491).
The court properly closed the courtroom during testimony of the two undercover officers. The officers were still operating in the area of defendant's arrest, had pending cases and had received threats, including threats made in the vicinity of the arrest. Their testimony thus established a nexus between their concern for their safety and their open-court testimony in defendant's case, justifying closure of the courtroom ( People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied 522 U.S. 1002).
By making only generalized objections, defendant did not preserve his present challenges to the People's summation and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find them to be without merit ( see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.