Opinion
June 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.).
Defendant has failed to preserve by specific objection his claim regarding the propriety of closure of the courtroom during the undercover officers trial testimony ( People v. Stovens, 237 A.D.2d 154, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1101), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the officers Hinton hearing testimony that he continued to work in an undercover capacity within the confines of the Manhattan South Command, including several specified precincts; that he anticipated returning to work in the same location where the subject sale occurred during the remaining 18-month period of his undercover assignment; that he had last worked at that location only two months earlier; and that he had 40 open narcotics cases all of which emanated from the same sales location, established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the arrest location and the anticipated geographic location of the officers future investigative work to justify closure ( People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ U.S. ___ 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Pepe, 235 A.D.2d 221, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1039).
We have considered defendants remaining contention and find it to be unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.