Opinion
June 9, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was sufficient evidence to justify closing the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer. At a hearing conducted pursuant to People v. Hinton ( 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the undercover officer testified that he had numerous ongoing investigations in the area of the defendant's arrest, that he had been in that neighborhood two days before the Hinton hearing, and that he expected to return to the vicinity of the defendant's arrest the following week. He also testified that he was actively involved in undercover drug sales in the neighborhood surrounding the courthouse and that his life would be in jeopardy if his identity became known. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in closing the courtroom while the undercover officer was on the witness stand (see, People v. Cebeda, 211 A.D.2d 729; People v. Hill, 209 A.D.2d 433; People v. Jamison, 203 A.D.2d 385).
The defendant also objects to the trial court's Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine him, if he took the stand, about five out of his thirteen prior criminal acts. The fact that some of those convictions dated back to the 1970's did not, by itself, require preclusion for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Smilovich, 157 A.D.2d 809). Moreover, where the defendant's prior criminal conduct indicates a disposition to place his self-interest above that of society, it is considered probative on the issue of credibility (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.