PEOPLE v. FOXWORTH (2003)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered July 18, 2001, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 At a Hinton hearing (see People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 334 N.Y.S.2d 885, 286 N.E.2d 265, cert. denied 410 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 970, 35 L.Ed.2d 273), the undercover detectives who had participated in the “buy and bust” operation that resulted in the defendant's arrest indicated that they were still conducting undercover operations in the area where the arrest took place.   The detectives also testified that they had been threatened by subjects in that area, and had lost subjects from that area.   Contrary to the contention of the defendant, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in excluding the general public from the courtroom during the detectives' trial testimony (see People v. Wilson, 251 A.D.2d 688, 676 N.Y.S.2d 476;  People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310, 655 N.Y.S.2d 376;  People v. Monroig, 223 A.D.2d 730, 637 N.Y.S.2d 451), and specifically excluding her mother and friend, who lived within the area of the undercover operations and could identify the detectives and jeopardize their safety (see People v. Blake, 284 A.D.2d 339, 726 N.Y.S.2d 433;  People v. Feliciano, 228 A.D.2d 519, 644 N.Y.S.2d 307;  People v. Dorcas, 218 A.D.2d 813, 630 N.Y.S.2d 796).   The defendant's contentions regarding the adequacy of the Supreme Court's findings in support of its closure order are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Molina, 297 A.D.2d 601, 747 N.Y.S.2d 368, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 770, 752 N.Y.S.2d 10, 781 N.E.2d 922), and, in any event, are without merit.

 The defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined the defense witnesses and made improper comments on summation.   The defendant's contentions in this regard are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hunte, 276 A.D.2d 717, 714 N.Y.S.2d 331).   In any event, while we agree that certain questioning was improper (see People v. Glover, 134 A.D.2d 448, 521 N.Y.S.2d 250), and that certain summation comments were also improper (see People v. Benedetto, 294 A.D.2d 958, 744 N.Y.S.2d 92), any error was harmless under the circumstances (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Valdez, 269 A.D.2d 550, 703 N.Y.S.2d 727).