Opinion
May 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence that he intentionally aided his codefendant by steering an undercover officer to the codefendant for the purchase of cocaine (People v Davis, 202 A.D.2d 325, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 910), directing his codefendant to provide the undercover with drugs (People v McDermott, 192 A.D.2d 415, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1076), acting as a lookout during the sale (People v Lopez, 200 A.D.2d 525, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1005), and by remaining with his codefendant after the sale was consummated. This testimony provided legally sufficient evidence of defendant's complicity under Penal Law § 20.00 and demonstrated that defendant's interest in promoting the transaction and involvement therein went "beyond being a mere extension of the buyer" (People v Tention, 162 A.D.2d 355, 356, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991). Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
Contrary to defendant's claim, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the undercover officers to testify anonymously. At the Hinton hearing, the People established that the undercover officers demonstrated a justifiable fear for their personal safety. (People v Remgifo, 150 A.D.2d 736.) In response, defendant argued that the officers' anonymity would unfairly suggest to the jury that defendant was a threat to the officers' safety. This claim was entirely speculative since it was just as likely that the jury could have interpreted the officers' anonymity as necessary due to the nature of their undercover activities. Since defendant failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the witness' identity was material to the issue of his guilt or innocence (People v Stanard, 42 N.Y.2d 74, 83-84, cert denied 434 U.S. 986), the court's ruling was proper.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.