People v. Gatling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gatling

240 A.D.2d 216, 658 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171

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

DecidedJune 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 216 (People v. Gatling) 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. Gatling, 240 A.D.2d 216, 658 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered November 17, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers, based on the officers’ testimony at a Hinton hearing that they were currently and expected in the future to be engaged in undercover operations in the specific area of defendant’s arrest, and that they feared for their own safety if their identities were known (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Furthermore, the closure was limited to the extent necessary to protect the officers’ safety, defendant’s family not being excluded. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered November 17, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers, based on the officers’ testimony at a Hinton hearing that they were currently and expected in the future to be engaged in undercover operations in the specific area of defendant’s arrest, and that they feared for their own safety if their identities were known (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Furthermore, the closure was limited to the extent necessary to protect the officers’ safety, defendant’s family not being excluded. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 216, 658 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gatling-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack