People v. LoneyPeople v. Loney
The court properly permitted the limited closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer‘s testimony, where the
The court properly permitted the People to reopen their case to introduce a written description of defendant made by the undercover officer prior to defendant‘s arrest, when defense counsel‘s summation implied that the undercover officer‘s testimony about the seller‘s description was a recent fabrication made to conform with defendant‘s appearance at the time of his arrest (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 18 [1993]; People v Terrell, 298 AD2d 241 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 585 [2003]; People v De Los Angeles, 270 AD2d 196, 199 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 889 [2000]). In any event, were we to find that any error occurred, we would find it to be harmless. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.