| People v Tate |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06882 [110 AD3d 1013] |
| October 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Raymond Tate, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Jeanette Lifschitz, Tina Grillo, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Holder, J.), rendered August 19, 2010, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (seven counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions regarding the Supreme Court's closure of the courtroomduring the testimony of two undercover police detectives are unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v James, 47 AD3d 947, 948 [2008]; People vLatta, 222 AD2d 303, 303-304 [1995]). In any event, under the circumstances of thiscase, the court providently adopted a reasonable alternative to full closure of thecourtroom, excluding the general public and allowing the defendant's sister and thedefendant's friend to be present during the testimony of the two undercover detectives,and placing a blackboard in front of the detectives so as to shield their identities from thesister and the friend. The two undercover detectives testified at a Hinton hearing(see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911[1973]) that they had conducted a long-term undercover operation in the particularhousing project where the defendant had been arrested, and that there wereunapprehended or "lost" subjects from that investigation. Further, they both testified thatthey had been threatened by subjects in the past and their safety would be jeopardized iftheir identities were revealed, that they both planned to conduct future narcoticsoperations in the area and that one detective planned to return to the particular housingproject, that they currently had pending cases in the courthouse in which they weretestifying, and that they took special precautions when testifying in court so as to protecttheir identities. Contrary to the defendant's contention, this testimony exceeded mere"unparticularized impressions of the vicissitudes of undercover narcotics work ingeneral" and included particularized references to their own work which established aspecific link between their safety concerns and open-court testimony in this case(People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 498 [1997], cert denied sub nom. Ayala vNew York, 522 US 1002 [1997] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People vMartinez, 82 NY2d 436, 443 [1993]; People v Mazarigos, 76 AD3d 533, 534 [2010]; Peoplev James, 47 AD3d at 948; People v Gonzalez, 43 AD3d 827, 827-828 [2007]; People v Mendez, 5 AD3d400 [2004]).[*2]
The defendant's contention in his pro sesupplemental brief relating to an alleged Brady violation (see Brady vMaryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vThompson, 81 AD3d 670, 672 [2011]; People v Murad, 55 AD3d 754, 756 [2008]) and, in anyevent, is without merit. The defendant's contention, also raised in his pro se supplementalbrief, that the prosecutor presented perjured testimony, is likewise unpreserved forappellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v Garcia, 57 AD3d 918, 919 [2008]). Mastro,J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.