People v. Antonio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Antonio

221 A.D.2d 551, 635 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11902

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 551 (People v. Antonio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Antonio, 221 A.D.2d 551, 635 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered January 10, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), was sufficient to support the court’s decision to close the courtroom. Both undercover officers testified that they feared for their personal safety, and indicated that they regularly worked in the area of the defendant’s arrest, and would continue to do so. Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in closing the courtroom during the officers’ testimony (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered January 10, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), was sufficient to support the court’s decision to close the courtroom. Both undercover officers testified that they feared for their personal safety, and indicated that they regularly worked in the area of the defendant’s arrest, and would continue to do so. Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in closing the courtroom during the officers’ testimony (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 551, 635 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-antonio-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack