PEOPLE v. LAURIANO (1997)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 14, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Under the applicable standards (People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027), the courtroom was properly closed during the undercover detective's testimony.   The Hinton hearing testimony “established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the location of the defendant's arrest, and the anticipated geographic location of the undercover officer's future investigative work” (People v. Brown, 214 A.D.2d 438, 439, 625 N.Y.S.2d 506, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 791, 632 N.Y.S.2d 504, 656 N.E.2d 603).   The fact that the courthouse was in New York County, while the arrest occurred in Brooklyn, does not mandate a different result.  (People v. Miller, 190 A.D.2d 609, 593 N.Y.S.2d 812, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 974, 598 N.Y.S.2d 775, 615 N.E.2d 232).

 Finally, we note, contrary to defendant's contention, that the court was not required to sua sponte consider alternatives to closure (People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 504-506, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492).   Moreover, the closure was no broader than necessary, the court granting defendant's request that his family be permitted to attend (see, People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 57-58, 571 N.Y.S.2d 436, 574 N.E.2d 1042).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.