testimony at the Hinton hearing in New York

2020The testimony at the Hinton hearing ( see People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 ) established a specific link between the officers' safety concerns and open-court testimony in this case ( see People v Ramos , 90 NY2d 490, 498-500 ; People v Martinez , 82 NY2d 436, 443 ).

1998The testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, 76 , cert denied 410 US 911 ) established that the officer was to return to the arrest area for future undercover work, had been threatened previously, had been assaulted by a lost subject who identified him as a police officer, and took precautions to keep his identity secret whenever his presence was required at hearings or trials.

2020The testimony at the Hinton hearing ( see People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 ) established a specific link between the officers' safety concerns and open-court testimony in this case ( see People v Ramos , 90 NY2d 490, 498-500 ; People v Martinez , 82 NY2d 436, 443 ).

1995Moreover, were we to reach defendant’s claim, we would find it devoid of merit as the testimony at the Hinton hearing established that the officer was still regularly working as an undercover officer in numerous ongoing investigations in the vicinity of defendant’s arrest, that his life had been threatened in the course of his undercover work, and that he would no longer be able to work undercover without fearing for his safety if his identity as a police officer were to become known (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436 ).

2020Further, since the defendant failed to establish a relationship other than ordinary [*2]friendship with two proposed spectators ( see People v Nazario , 4 NY3d 70, 74 ), the People were not required to establish that either proposed spectator posed a particular threat to the undercover officers, and those proposed spectators were properly excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers ( see People v Brown , 107 AD3d 499, 500 ; People v Thomas , 52 AD3d 626, 627 ; People v Sweeney , 25 AD3d 335, 336 ).

2020Further, since the defendant failed to establish a relationship other than ordinary [*2]friendship with two proposed spectators ( see People v Nazario , 4 NY3d 70, 74 ), the People were not required to establish that either proposed spectator posed a particular threat to the undercover officers, and those proposed spectators were properly excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers ( see People v Brown , 107 AD3d 499, 500 ; People v Thomas , 52 AD3d 626, 627 ; People v Sweeney , 25 AD3d 335, 336 ).

2020Further, since the defendant failed to establish a relationship other than ordinary [*2]friendship with two proposed spectators ( see People v Nazario , 4 NY3d 70, 74 ), the People were not required to establish that either proposed spectator posed a particular threat to the undercover officers, and those proposed spectators were properly excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers ( see People v Brown , 107 AD3d 499, 500 ; People v Thomas , 52 AD3d 626, 627 ; People v Sweeney , 25 AD3d 335, 336 ).

2020Further, since the defendant failed to establish a relationship other than ordinary [*2]friendship with two proposed spectators ( see People v Nazario , 4 NY3d 70, 74 ), the People were not required to establish that either proposed spectator posed a particular threat to the undercover officers, and those proposed spectators were properly excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers ( see People v Brown , 107 AD3d 499, 500 ; People v Thomas , 52 AD3d 626, 627 ; People v Sweeney , 25 AD3d 335, 336 ).

2002The testimony at the Hinton hearing was sufficiently particularized and established a substantial probability that the officer’s safety and effectiveness would be prejudiced by his testimony in an unrestricted courtroom (see People v Jones, 96 NY2d 213 ).

2000Both officers had several other cases pending before the court, both had recently worked undercover in the same area where defendant was arrested and expected to resume undercover operations there in the near future (with one officer then engaged in a long-term undercover operation in the area), and both testified to taking specific precautions upon entering the courthouse to conceal their identities because they feared being recognized as police officers (see, People v Ayala, 90 NY2d 490, 499, cert denied 522 US 1002 ).

1998The testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, 76 , cert denied 410 US 911 ) established that the officer was to return to the arrest area for future undercover work, had been threatened previously, had been assaulted by a lost subject who identified him as a police officer, and took precautions to keep his identity secret whenever his presence was required at hearings or trials.