| People v Ortiz |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05665 [74 AD3d 672] |
| June 24, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JoseOrtiz, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Bari L. Kamlet of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), rendered March 5, 2008, asamended May 29, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of five years,unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion when it permitted an undercover officer to testifyanonymously, identifying himself only by his shield number. The People's showing of anoverriding interest justifying closure of the courtroom also satisfied the People's burden, underPeople v Waver (3 NY3d 748[2004]), of establishing a need for anonymity. The officer articulated particular concerns for hissafety as a result of his continuing undercover operations. These included investigations intolarge-scale drug trafficking that was likely to be connected to the Bronx, notwithstanding theofficer's current assignment in Queens. While defendant argues that testifying under a shieldnumber enhanced the officer's credibility and suggested to the jury that defendant wasdangerous, he rejected the court's offer to provide a suitable curative instruction that would haveminimized any such prejudice. To the extent defendant is also claiming that the court's rulingunconstitutionally impaired his ability to cross-examine the officer, that claim is unpreserved andwe decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on themerits (see United States v Rangel, 534 F2d 147, 148 [9th Cir 1976], cert denied429 US 854 [1976]).
Defendant's unelaborated objections failed to preserve his present challenge to the chain ofcustody of the drugs, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternativeholding, we reject this claim, since the evidence provides a reasonable assurance of the identityand unchanged condition of the drugs (see People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340 [1977]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman,Nardelli, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.