Opinion
February 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to a public trial because his family was, in essence, precluded from attending the trial as a result of the trial court's decision to use a screen to block their view of the testimony of the undercover officer. The court properly exercised its discretion when it closed the courtroom during the trial testimony of the undercover police officer. The officer testified that he would be returning to the area where the arrest took place — an area where he had been threatened — and that if his identity was revealed that information could be disseminated in that area, resulting in his safety being jeopardized. The officer also testified that he had lost subjects and that he had never testified in open court before ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, 522 U.S. 1002; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310).
Moreover, the court ordered an alternative to closure with regard to the defendant's family, allowing them to remain in the courtroom during the officer's testimony provided that a screen was placed so as to block their view of the undercover officer ( see, People v. Rivera, 237 A.D.2d 178). Accordingly, the defendant was not deprived of his right to a public trial.
The defendant's sentence is not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Santucci, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.