Opinion
February 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.).
The undercover officer's hearing testimony that he was actively engaged in the community as an undercover narcotics agent at the time of trial provided ample grounds for the trial court's determination that closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony constituted an appropriate safety measure (People v. Carter, 162 A.D.2d 218, 219, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 984). As defendant's sole objection and argument at trial concentrated on the sufficiency of the People's showing in support of closure, and defendant suggested no reasonable alternative, the trial court did not err in failing to consider reasonable alternatives (People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444).
The trial court properly precluded defendant's attempt to impeach that portion of the arresting officer's trial testimony indicating that he observed defendant and the coindictee conversing minutes after the sale herein, by calling to the jury's attention the fact that the officer did not so testify before the Grand Jury. Absent a showing that the witness' attention was called to that circumstance by specific questioning before the Grand Jury, a claim that his trial testimony was inconsistent is insupportable (People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 88, cert denied sub nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905).
Contrary to defendant's argument, the trial court's jury charge on agency conveyed the appropriate legal principles (see, People v. Hurk, 165 A.D.2d 687, 688, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 1021).
Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct do not warrant reversal.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.