People v. Sweeney, 25 A.D.3d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006). · Go Syfert
People v. Sweeney, 25 A.D.3d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 336 Shifting burden after requiring courtroom closure for safety3 citing casesJ.), rendered July 8, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a…opening of page *336 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Spears, 94 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012).published
    People v Sweeney, 25 AD3d 335, 336 [2006]).
  • People v. Thomas, 52 A.D.3d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    Since the defendant failed to meet this threshold burden as to either individual, the People were not required to establish that either posed a particular threat to the first undercover officer, and accordingly, the court properly excluded…
  • People v. Branch, 48 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    Once the prosecution met its burden of showing that closure of the courtroom to the general public was required in order to protect the safety of the undercover officer, the burden shifted to the defendant to show that his sister’s fiancé…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Joseph Sweeney
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 3, 2006.
Published opinion
25 A.D.3d 335

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro,[*336] J.), rendered July 8, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established that defendant was part of a drug-selling operation and was not acting as the buyer’s agent.

Once the prosecution met the burden of showing that closure of the courtroom to the general public was required in order to protect the safety of the undercover officers, the burden shifted to defendant to demonstrate that an exception to the closure was warranted with regard to his friend because that person was “linked to him by some tie of more significance than ordinary friendship” (People v Nazario, 4 NY3d 70, 74 [2005]). Since defendant failed to make such a showing, the People were not required to establish that the proposed spectator posed a particular threat to the undercover officers, and the court properly excluded defendant’s friend from the courtroom during those officers’ testimony. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.