From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1999
257 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 19, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was denied his right to a public trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Richards, 235 A.D.2d 557; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. Before the undercover officers testified, the prosecutor requested that individuals other than the defendant's family be monitored before being allowed into the courtroom in order to ascertain that they did not live in the neighborhood where the officers worked. The defendant made a general objection. The court granted the prosecutor's request and stationed a court officer outside the door with instructions to inform the court if any members of the public sought to enter while the undercover officers were testifying. No one attempted to enter the courtroom during the undercover officers' testimony. Because the court offered an alternative to closure which was not objected to by the defendant, the defendant was not deprived of his right to a public trial ( see, People v. Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547; People v. Brown, 243 A.D.2d 641; People v. Portilla, 190 A.D.2d 827; People v. Brown, 188 A.D.2d 540).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1999
257 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Torres

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANCISCO TORRES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 19, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 562

Citing Cases

People v. Vatansever

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to a…

People v. Royal

The defendant and his codefendant consented to this arrangement. By consenting to this arrangement, the…