Opinion
March 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.).
Defendant's challenges to the undercover officer's testimony explaining the difference between "buy and bust" operations and ongoing investigations have not been preserved for appellate review by timely and specific objection (see, People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the testimony was properly admissible as background information and did not link defendant with an ongoing investigation (see, People v. Ramos, 192 A.D.2d 324, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1078).
Defendant's claim that his right to a public trial was violated by the court's placement of a court officer outside the doors of the courtroom with instructions to notify the court if anyone wished to enter is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Perez, 245 A.D.2d 71). When the court, after a Hinton hearing, denied the People's application for closure and instead directed this screening procedure, defendant voiced no objection. We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find the alternative to closure employed by the court was proper in view of the undercover officer's legitimate safety concerns (supra).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.