Opinion
Argued November 15, 2000.
Decided December 19, 2000.
APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered June 29, 2000, which (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered in New York County upon a verdict convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and (2) remanded the matter for a new trial.
Submitted by Karen Heiss Eisen, for appellant.
Submitted by Nancy E. Little, for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant "unquestionably apprised" the trial court of his wish to have his girlfriend and uncle attend his trial (see, People v Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426, 431 n*). Thus, defendant adequately preserved his partial closure argument for purposes of appellate review.
On the merits, although the trial court may have been justified in excluding the general public from the courtroom during the officers' testimony (see, People v Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 498), on this record, it was error to exclude defendant's girlfriend and uncle. At the Hinton hearings, the officers failed to address how their safety interest might be compromised by testifying in front of defendant's girlfriend or uncle. Indeed, the officers "never even mentioned" any of defendant's friends and family (see, People v Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d at 430, supra).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum.