Opinion
June 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the court erred in directing that the courtroom be closed during the testimony of the undercover officer. The testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911) established that the officer was to return to the arrest area for future undercover work, had been threatened previously, had been assaulted by a lost subject who identified him as a police officer, and took precautions to keep his identity secret whenever his presence was required at hearings or trials. Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer was therefore warranted here (see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 500, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443; People v. Pagan, 245 A.D.2d 312; People v. Green, 244 A.D.2d 571; People v. Whiteside, 243 A.D.2d 744; People v. Pryor, 243 A.D.2d 656; People v. Pastrana, 237 A.D.2d 628; People v. Diaz, 237 A.D.2d 457; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310).
The defendant's Rosario claim is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit. The court properly conducted an in camera examination of writings made by the prosecutor during her interview with a police witness (see, People v. Barrigar, 233 A.D.2d 845), and found them to be as the prosecutor represented, that is, either not relevant to the witness, or material that was attorney work product (see, People v. Shaw, 212 A.D.2d 745; People v. Roberts, 178 A.D.2d 622; cf., People v. Austin, 75 N.Y.2d 723, 730; People v. Gourgue, 239 A.D.2d 357).
O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.