Opinion
May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
Over the defendant's objection, the court granted the People's application to close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. We find that the court erred since the officer's testimony at the hearing on the issue of the closure was insufficient to satisfy the criteria of People v. Martinez ( 82 N.Y.2d 436). Accordingly, the closure of the courtroom denied the defendant his right to a public trial, and a new trial is required (see, People v. Martinez, supra).
The trial court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to cross-examine the defendant about the facts underlying his prior convictions for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal mischief, was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The record reveals that the court properly weighed the competing factors (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The mere similarity between the defendant's prior drug conviction and the crime with which he was charged is insufficient to preclude the use of the prior conviction on cross-examination (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Overton, 192 A.D.2d 624).
In view of our decision that there must be a new trial, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.