PEOPLE v. MEREDITH (2022)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered February 20, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, four counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

At a Hinton hearing, the People established an overriding interest in protecting the undercover officer's safety that supported a limited closure of the courtroom (see People v. Echevarria, 21 N.Y.3d 1, 12–14, 966 N.Y.S.2d 747, 989 N.E.2d 9 [2013], cert. denied sub nom.  Johnson v. New York, 571 U.S. 1111, 134 S.Ct. 823, 187 L.Ed.2d 688 [2013];  People v. Gonzalez, 145 A.D.3d 586, 587–588, 44 N.Y.S.3d 380 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1184, 52 N.Y.S.3d 711, 75 N.E.3d 103 [2017];  People v. Sykes, 135 A.D.3d 535, 22 N.Y.S.3d 844 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 969, 36 N.Y.S.3d 630, 56 N.E.3d 910 [2016]).  The officer testified that he regularly worked in the area where he bought drugs from defendant, that he had pending investigations in both Brooklyn and Manhattan, that he had been threatened with violence on multiple occasions, and that he took precautions to protect his identity when coming to the courthouse (see e. g. People v. Rodriguez, 163 A.D.3d 437, 80 N.Y.S.3d 263 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1067, 89 N.Y.S.3d 122, 113 N.E.3d 956 [2018]).  Additionally, the officer's testimony established that the area in Brooklyn where he bought drugs from defendant was easily accessible from the Manhattan courthouse where he was testifying in this Special Narcotics case (see People v. Dones, 220 A.D.2d 267, 632 N.Y.S.2d 116 [1st Dept. 1995], lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 900, 641 N.Y.S.2d 230, 663 N.E.2d 1260 [1995]).

Although the court should have permitted defendant to cross-examine the undercover officer about the underlying facts of a pending lawsuit alleging that the undercover officer, along with other officers, falsely claimed that the plaintiff had sold drugs, any error was harmless (see People v. Smith, 27 N.Y.3d 652, 664, 36 N.Y.S.3d 861, 57 N.E.3d 53 [2016]).  The case did not turn on this officer's credibility, because there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, including videotapes of all seven drug sales, exchanges of text messages between defendant and the officer, and defendant's incriminating recorded phone call.