Opinion
April 7, 1997
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered May 15, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, closure of the courtroom was proper in this case where the undercover officer's testimony established a sufficient link between his concern for his safety and open court testimony ( see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54). Further, the fact that the defendant knew the undercover officer's name did not obviate the need for closure. "[W]hile there may have been limited disclosure of [the undercover officer's] name, there had been no disclosure of his appearance, and closure was necessary to prevent members of the public from connecting his face with his name" ( People v. Johnson, 233 A.D.2d 761, 764).
The defendant's remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J.P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.