Opinion
January 20, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
The trial court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer, who testified at the Hinton hearing that he was currently working as an undercover in the precinct where defendant was arrested, had open cases pending from buy and bust operations that took place in the immediate vicinity of the Bronx County courthouse, near where defendant was arrested, that he took specific safety precautions before entering the courthouse, and that he feared for his safety ( People v. Rash, 238 A.D.2d 195, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 897; People v. Ford, 235 A.D.2d 285, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1035). Further, since defense counsel never suggested any alternatives to closure, the court was not required to do so ( People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574).
Defendant's challenge to the court's failure to address the Dunaway claim raised in his motion to suppress identification testimony is unpreserved since defendant did nothing to alert the court to the fact that it had overlooked one aspect of his motion, thereby acquiescing in the lack of a ruling ( see, People v. Rodriquez, 50 N.Y.2d 553), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find defendant's allegations insufficient because they did not address the earlier drug transaction with the undercover officer ( People v. Williams, 228 A.D.2d 268, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 996). Furthermore, defendant's contention that he did not fit the description given by the undercover officer was conclusory ( supra).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Tom, JJ.