Opinion
December 18, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the record before us we cannot say that the defendant was improperly deprived of Rosario material at his trial (see, People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, rearg denied 9 N.Y.2d 908, cert denied 368 U.S. 866). Given the inadequacy of this record, this issue would more appropriately be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Battles, 141 A.D.2d 748; People v Drummond, 99 A.D.2d 760).
The trial court did not err in concluding that the interests of justice exception contained within CPL 60.42 (5) did not warrant inquiry into the victim's sexual history (see, People v Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952, cert denied 446 U.S. 949). Moreover, the court's ruling with respect to defense counsel's questioning of the complainant regarding her alleged drug use and prostitution activities did not unduly infringe upon the defendant's right of confrontation (see, People v Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22; People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846).
Nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the People's request to partially close the courtroom during the testimony of one of their witnesses. On the record before us we are satisfied that the court had before it sufficient facts so as to justify the closure of the courtroom to the defendant's family during the brief testimony of one witness who had indicated that she had seen members of the defendant's family in the courtroom and that she had been threatened by at least one of them (see, People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 414-415, cert denied 444 U.S. 946; People v Hagan, 24 N.Y.2d 395, cert denied sub nom. Hayer v New York, 396 U.S. 886; People v Guevara, 135 A.D.2d 566).
We have examined the prosecutorial summation and conclude that the remarks complained of constituted fair comment on the evidence or were made in response to the defense summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Robinson, 137 A.D.2d 564; People v Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473).
We have considered the defendant's additional claims raised in his supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.