People v Gonzalez
2007 NY Slip Op 06557 [43 AD3d 827]
September 4, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 7, 2007


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
EmilGonzalez, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (MichaelA. Dang of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed).

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky,and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP [J.E. Shreve Ariail and Chad Silverman] ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango,J.), rendered April 22, 2005, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in closing the courtroom during the testimonyof an undercover police officer. The undercover officer testified at a Hinton hearing(see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]), thathe had ongoing undercover operations and investigations within the area of the arrest, that hewould be returning to the area where the arrest took place, and that if his identity were revealed,his safety and cases would be jeopardized. The officer also testified that he had lost subjects, hadbeen threatened by subjects in that area, and that he had not testified in open court (see Peoplev Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 499 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1002 [1997]; People vMartinez, 82 NY2d 436, 443 [1993]; People v Mendez, 5 AD3d 400 [2004]; People v Foxworth,305 AD2d 424, 425 [2003]; People v Hargett, 293 AD2d 757, 758 [2002]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court [*2]considered improper factors in imposing sentence (see People vHarrison, 82 NY2d 693, 694 [1993]; People v Matthews, 1 AD3d 530 [2003]). In any event, thiscontention is without merit, and the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People vSuitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Miller, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.